Strange, I find the AGW argument to have been one of consistency. “Monkton” makes this assertion, then provides no evidence to support it. On the other hand, AGW deniers are quite content to believe mutually contradictory statements, and a constantly changing set of statements on why AGW is wrong.

By Lord Monckton

Dear Sir Humphrey – The “Abundance of scientific statements” that you mention is no sound or logical basis for deciding or believing anything. The question is whether the scientific statements have any rational justification, and whether those making them are in effect making statements that are political rather than scientific, rent-seeking rather than objective. After all, this is the age of reason (or it was).

Therefore, one should not accord to “scientists” the status of infallible high priests merely because they mumble a hieratic language with which one is unfamiliar. There is clear, compelling evidence that many of the major conclusions of the IPCC, your new religion’s constantly-changing Holy Book, are based on evidence that has been fabricated. The “hockey stick” graph that purported to abolish the mediaeval warm period is just one example. So let me try to lure you away from feeble-minded, religious belief in the Church of “Global Warming” and back towards the use of the faculty of reason.

Let us begin with the “devastation of New Orleans” that you mention. Even the High Priests of your Church are entirely clear that individual extreme-weather events such as Hurricane Katrina cannot, repeat cannot, be attributed to “global warming”. Even the Holy Book makes this entirely plain. There was one priest – Emanuel (a good, religious name) – who had suggested there might be a link between “global warming” and hurricanes; but he has recently recanted, at least to some extent. Very nearly all others in the hierarchy of your Church are clear that ascribing individual extreme-weather events to “global warming” is impossible. Why? Well, let’s take the question of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes such as Katrina. The implication of your attribution of Hurricane Katrina to “global warming” is twofold: that “global warming” is happening, and that in consequence either the frequency or the intensity of tropical weather systems such as hurricanes is increasing. Neither of these propositions is true. Yes, there has been “global warming” for 300 years, since the end of the 60-year period of unusually low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum (after the celebrated Astronomer Royal who studied it). But there has been no net warming since 1995, and Keenlyside et al, in the theological journal Nature a few months ago, say they do not expect a new record year for global temperatures until 2015 at the earliest. If these theologians are correct, there will have been a 20-year period of no net “global warming” even though the presence of the devil Siotu in the ether grows inexorably stronger. And, secondly, the number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall has actually fallen throughout the 20th century, even as temperatures have risen. Indeed, some theologians have argued that warmer weather actually reduces the temperature differential between sea and sky that generates hurricanes, reducing their frequency, and that the extra heat in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system increases wind-shear in tropical storms, tending to reduce their intensity. Certainly the frequency of intense tropical cyclones has fallen throughout the 30-year satellite record, even though temperatures have increased compared with 30 years ago. Also, the damage done by Hurricane Katrina was chiefly caused by the failure of the Democrat-led city administration to heed repeated warnings from the Corps of Engineers that the levees needed to be strengthened.

Next, you mention the recent earthquake damage at Galveston, and you imply that this is something new and terrible. Perhaps you would like to do some research of your own to verify whether the High Priests of your Church, some of whom have blamed the Galveston incident on the wrath of the devil Siotu, are likely to be telling the truth. And how, you may ask, may a non-theologian such as yourself argue theology with your High Priests? Well, the Galveston incident will give you just one indication of the many ways in which a lay member of the Church of “Global Warming” may verify for himself whether or not the Great Druids of his religion are speaking the truth from their pulpits in the media. Cast your eye back just over a century, to 1906, and look up what happened to Galveston then. Which was worse – Galveston 2008 or Galveston 1906? Next, check the global mean surface temperature in 1906: many theology faculties compile surface temperature data and make it publicly available to the faithful and to infidels alike. Was the global mean surface temperature significantly lower or significantly higher in 2008 than in 1906? What implications do your two answers have for your proposition that Galveston 2008 can be attributed to “global warming”?

Next, you mention fires in California. Once again, you can either sit slumped in your pew, gazing in adoration at the Archdruids as their pious faces flicker across your television screen, or you can do a little research for yourself. It may, for instance, occur to you to ask whether droughts were worse in the United States in the second half of the 20th century than they were in the first half. Once again, you may want to check with your local theological faculty to obtain the answer to this question. Or you may like to pick up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. And you may want to verify whether temperatures in the second half of the 20th century were warmer than in the first half. Once again, what are the implications of your two answers for your proposition that “global warming” is causing forest fires? You could also talk to the Fire Department in California and obtain its data on the causes of forest fires. You might be mightily surprised by the answers you get.

Next, you talk of beetles in your forests destroying natural resources. Here, you could ask the Druids just a couple of simple questions. What evidence do they have, if any, that whichever species of beetle you have in mind has not wrought havoc in the forests before? And, even if your clergy think that they have evidence that the beetle-damage is new, what evidence do they have, if any, that the beetle-damage is greater because of “global warming” than it would otherwise have been? Of course, you could ask them the wider question what evidence there is that anthropogenic “global warming”, as opposed to solar warming, is the reason for the temperature increases that have occurred over the past 300 years. The more honest parish priests will admit that for 250 of the past 300 years none of the inferred warming can be attributed to human industry. They will also be compelled to concede, if you press them, that the warming of the most recent 50 years has not occurred at a rate any greater than that which was observed before, so that it is in fact very difficult to discern any anthropogenic signal at all in the temperature record.

Next, you talk of people migrating from one place to another because in some places water has become scarce. Once again, it is easy for a layman, whether a true believer such as yourself or not, to verify whether such migrations are as a result of “global warming”. For instance, you could ask whether there have been changing patterns of drought and flood before in human history. Once you have collected some historical data – most theological faculties have quite a lot of this available, though you may have to dig a little to get it – you could compare previous migrations with those of which you now speak. And you could also ask your local parish priest whether a theological phenomenon known as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation mandates that, as the atmosphere warms, the carrying-capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapor decreases, remains static, or increases near-exponentially. Once you have found the answers to these not particularly difficult questions, you may like to spend some of your devotional time meditating on the question whether, or to what extent, the changes in patterns of flood and drought that have occurred in the past give you any confidence that such changes occurring today are either worse than those in the past or attributable to “global warming”, whether caused by the increasing presence of the devil Siotu in the atmosphere or by the natural evolution of the climate. During your meditation, you may like to refer to the passage from the 2001 edition of the Holy Book of the IPCC that describes the climate as “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” whose long-term future evolution cannot reliably be predicted.

If you are willing to reflect a little on the questions I have raised – and, with the exception of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, I have done my best to avoid anything that might be too technical for a layman to find out for himself – you will perhaps come to realize that there is very little basis in scientific fact for the alarmist, hellfire preaching in which your clergy love to indulge. And you may even find your faith in your new religion beginning to weaken a little in the face of the truths that you will have unearthed by the not particularly difficult process of simply checking those statements of your clergy that you can easily and independently verify. There are, of course, many environmental problems posed by the astonishing recent success of humankind. If you were concerned, for instance, about deforestation, or the loss of species whose habitats have been displaced by humans, then your concerns would have a good grounding in fact. But, given the abject failure of global temperatures to rise as the Druids had forecast, it must surely be clear to you that the influence of the devil Siotu on global temperatures – your theologians call this “climate sensitivity” – must be a great deal smaller than your Holy Book asks you to believe.

Finally, you may wonder why I have so scathingly described your pious belief in your new religion as founded upon blind faith rather than upon the light of reason. I have drafted this email in this way so that you can perhaps come to see for yourself just how baffling it is to the likes of me, who were educated in the light of TH Huxley’s dictum that the first duty of the scientist is skepticism, to see how easily your hierarchy is able to prey upon your naive credulity. I do not target this comment at you alone: there are far too many others who, like you, are in positions of some authority and whose duty to think these things through logically is great, and yet who simply fail to ask even the most elementary and blindingly obvious questions before sappily, happily, clappily believing in, and parroting by rote, whatever the current Establishment proposes. I do not know whether you merely believe all that you are told by the Druids because otherwise you will find yourself in conflict with other true believers among your colleagues or, worse, among your superiors. If you are under pressures of this kind, I do sympathize. But if you are free to think for yourself without penalty, may I beg you – in the name of humanity – to give the use of reason a try?

Why “in the name of humanity”? Because, although the noisy preachers from the media pulpits have found it expedient not to say so, there have been food riots all round the world as the biofuel scam whipped up by the High Priests of your religion takes vast tracts of agricultural land out of food production. Millions are now starving because the price of food has doubled in little more than a year. A leaked report by the World Bank says that fully three-quarters of that doubling has occurred as a direct result of the biofuel scam. So your religion is causing mass starvation in faraway countries, and is even causing hardship to the poorest in your own country. Can you, in conscience, look away from the sufferings that your beliefs are inflicting upon the poorest and most helpless people in the world?

There are alarmist scientists and there are real scientists and the two are not to be confused.

are you going to acknowledge that Chilingar was wrong about scientists not being aware of the role of convection in climate, when they first became aware of it 40 years ago when their first simple models weren’t working?

A Ph.D in math studies undergraduate courses that lead him to a bachelor’s degree in math, then he specializes in math through his graduate studies. He might encounter problem of applied mathematics that lead him into physics at a superficial level but his expertise in physics is literally nil.

A Ph.D in physics studies general physics for 5 years to get a bachelor’s degree, then he specializes in physics. He is an expert in the same by the time he gets his doctorate. Schmidt does not list physics among his qualifications and I think it’s because his expertise is in computer modeling, not physics.

Degrees in climate science were not available much before 1980. Dr. Joanne Simpson was the first scientists to get a doctorate in meteorology, back in the 1950’s. Meteorologists and atmospheric physicists specialize in climate related sciences both during their undergraduate courses and their graduate courses. Scientists like Spencer, Christy, Michaels, Trenberth, et al specialized in atmospheric physics during their 8 years of getting a degree.

Glassman is another kind of cat altogether. He’s an engineer who specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics, communication and information theory.

Engineers go through a thorough undergraduate program in math, physics and chemistry as well as specializing in their field of engineering, which is in the field of physics. When I studied engineering for a couple of years, the courses were all honours-level and the academic burden was twice that of other disciplines. For example, a straight physics undergraduate degree required 15 hours of class time per week plus labs and tutorials. Engineering required 21 hours of class time plus labs and tutorials, for a total of over 40 hours per week.

While physics student took one math course and one physics course, we took two of each. Engineering is about problem solving and many engineers who get their Ph. D’s can go into other disciplines fairly easily because they have studied a broad spectrum of sciences and have learned problem solving to an expert level.

Glassman was not arguing with Schmidt on climate science, he was arguing on subjects he knew well, like feedback theory and computer modeling. Schmidt could not possibly have the in-depth training in physics that Glassman has.

One of the scientists Schmidt and the AGWers love to discredit is Fred Singer, yet he’s one of the most brilliant scientists of the bunch. He has a degree in electrical engineering, one of the most difficult degrees to attain due to the work content and the difficulty encountered academically. Furthermore, he is an expert on the atmosphere. I find it pitiful to hear Schmidt putting him down because Schmidt is not even in the same league as Singer academically or on the atmosphere.

LOL

Therefore, AGW is just a claim, a weak theory, a supposition; it’s way off being a theory that has passed all traditional scientific evidential criteria.

Let’s remember that over the last twenty years ‘experts’, politicians, the media & pressure groups (a consensus?) told us that we were going to have an new Ice Age, AIDS, bird flu and SARS epidemics, that a Y2K computer failure would ’stop’ the world, that Saddam had WMD etc, etc. What happened – very little – storm in a tea cup – scaremongering and brinkmanship on a grand scale. Mankind may have had an impact on climate change (he certainly does on the environment at a local level) or may do so in the future, however there is no substantive, observable, or verifiable evidence that we have as yet had any global impact or that we understand why we might in the future.

I didn’t say I know nothing. All I said was, unlike you, I am aware of the limits of my knowledge.

Neither you nor they carry any weight at all. You are an idiot. You admit you know nothing. They are idiots who also have no evidence but they won’t admit it. The differences are irrelevant. They are not scientists so stop lying and calling them scientists.

You can call them science-workers, research-grant whores. These are acceptable names for such people. You can call them people who are masters at passing tests via the use of nemonics.

Nemonics. The Australian approach to higher learning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now one of you dim bulbs had some sort of derision on the fly for a paradigm that I gather Louis put up one time or another.

I’m supposing that you are aware that derision is not a reliable methodology when it comes to human reason.

Can you tell me why you think it isn’t a worthy paradigm?

Is it because it relates to gravity and you think there is nothing further to be said about the subject?

You would have to be a complete moron to imagine that this the case. We know that gravity isn’t pinned down because they keep on coming up with these feeble excuses like dark matter and for the love of stupid buxom blondes “dark energy.”

So given that the state of the theory of gravity is no reason to be dismissive of this paradigm what is your reason?

I’ve never heard of it before. So you tell me its weak points?

If it has no weak points you know of why isn’t it under consideration?

You see you alarmists will never be scientists. You’d have to die and be born again.