Wednesday, July 17 2013
The BBC's Andrew Neil of BBC2 Sunday Politics, has informed himself and prepared some questions for Ed Davey, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The questions that should have been asked for years by any journalist seeking the truth in these matters stimulate some revealing and interesting responses. See both the Video and transcript HERE
Tuesday, July 16 2013
The Lord Monckton Foundation
(LMF) Monthly Global Warming Prediction Index
In this series, we track the monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies (average global temperature) as measured by Satellite, against the UN IPCC projected 2.3 Cº/century central projection of warming since 2005 in IPCC (2013: in press) based on the output of 34 climate models running under four radiative-forcing scenarios. The entire observed trend line is below the IPCC’s least projection of 1.1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s high-end projection of warming to 2050, equivalent to 3.6 Cº/century, already seems far-fetched.
See HERE for how the Global Warming Prediction Index is compiled.
LMF Monthly Global Warming Prediction Index Series - July 2013 HERE
See Press Release HERE
The long pause in global warming continues
The Lord Monckton Foundation’s monthly Global Warming Projection Index number for July 2013 is 0.22 Cº, That is how much the IPCC’s central projection of global warming over the 8 years 6 months January 2005 to June 2013 has overshot the observed temperature trend. The long, unpredicted pause in global warming continues.
Ø If the 102-month IPCC overshoot were to continue for 100 years, the IPCC’s prediction would exceed the measured trend by 2.57 Cº. The IPCC’s central projection of global warming to 2050 is 2.33 Cº (Fifth Assessment Report).
Ø Though the IPCC projection shows the world should have warmed by 0.20 Cº since 2005, the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite global temperature datasets shows cooling of 0.02 Cº, equivalent to 0.24 Cº/century. The predicted and actual trends are visibly diverging. Solar physicists and mathematicians expect significant cooling over at least the next five years.
Ø The trend in CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa shows a rise of 17 μatm since January 2005, equivalent to 202 μatm/century. On its own, this CO2 increase should have caused a radiative forcing of 0.24 Watts per square meter, or 0.34 W m–2 after including the influence of all other greenhouse gases. Even without temperature feedbacks, according to the IPCC’s methods this forcing should have caused 0.1 Cº warming. Adding in the IPCC’s temperature estimates of temperature feedbacks and of previously-committed global warming should have caused up to 0.3 Cº warming since January 2005. None has occurred.
Ø The least-squares trend on the RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 16 years 7 months (199 months). The NOAA, in its 2008 State of the Climate report, said 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and the real world.
Ø There has been no global warming above the published measurement and coverage uncertainties for 17 years 5 months (HadCRUt4 dataset). Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, admitted in February 2013 that there had been a 17-year “pause” in global warming. Dr. Ben Santer has said that 17 years or more without warming would raise concerns about the reliability of the models.
Lord Monckton said: “The profiteers of doom were wrong. There is a growing gulf between the colorful predictions of the IPCC’s models and the less exciting real-world temperatures measured by satellites. Savage increases in the cost of fuel and power are needlessly causing hardship and death, and all in the name of a catastrophism that has now been thoroughly discredited by events. The bankrupt nations of the West should stop throwing good money after bad. The temperature record shows man-made climate change is a non-problem.”
He added: “Global warming is no longer cool.”
Thursday, July 11 2013
In reply to Jo Nova's email request, a spokesperson from Macquarie replied today. The entire response to Murry Salby’s 20-point-list of serious accusations is reproduced in full (Jo Nova's full post HERE):
10 July 2013
STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.
The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.
Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.
The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.
The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.
– Attributed to “A spokesperson” for Macquarie University
Wednesday, July 10 2013
Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe.
Remarks from several make it clear that Macquarie University
is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs,
if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it.
Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible.
In response to queries is the following, a matter of record:
1. In 2008, I was recruited from the US by "Macquarie University",
with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with
regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide
specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia.
Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code,
comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research),
to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.
2. With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia.
Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that
the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why.
Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another.
Requests to release the committed resources were ignored.
3. Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component
of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse,
Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed.
As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.
4. A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me.
Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia.
Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer
models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not.
5. To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided
in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored.
The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal,
the government body with regulatory oversight.
The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract.
Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern
my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register
rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.
6. During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production
of a new book - all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program.
The endeavour compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases
and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/speaker/murry-salby/ Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012.
Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases.
More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, which benefits from such claims.
7. The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases.
Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates:
(i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief)
(ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane
also governs modern changes.
These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings,
which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission.
8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made
to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at
research centers in Europe.
9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description
of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie.
The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues
(arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie).
Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.
10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts
to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties.
My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers
for other staff - junior staff.
I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.
11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of "misconduct",
cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources,
even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.
My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me.
She was isolated - left without competent supervision
and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation,
research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.
12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged),
had to be fulfilled at personal expense.
13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which
grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057 (Open access via Google News)
To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim:
“one in two chance that by 2100 there'll be no human beings left on this planet”
Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff.
Included is its Chief Commissioner.
14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases,
Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia.
Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.
15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that
my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled.
The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe,
with no arrangements for lodging or return travel.
The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.
16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.
17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the
Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct.
18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal,
Macquarie terminated my appointment.
19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise.
It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.
20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research
on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated,
that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University's "Climate Experts".
Wednesday, July 03 2013
Lord Monckton examines papers on the 'consensus' of Climate Science
The latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a consensus that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that now-dwindling consensus.
Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted some key results; misstated others; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely that the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.
Climate change, consensus, scientific method, peer review
Blog, News and Latest Activities
Disclaimer for the Lord Monckton Foundation website:
Material on this site:
Photos and material on this site are used for educational and research purposes and are sourced from media outlets and the internet. If you are the copyright owner of any material used on this site and you object to its use, and such use falls outside the fair use provisions in ss. 40 - 42 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), please email email@example.com, and it will be removed. It is understood that in most countries, copyright automatically resides with the taker of the photograph or art work, unless rights are formally assigned to another.
Site Mailing List
"The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure."
The Lord Monckton Foundation
ABN 51 154 843 213 Registered Address: PO Box 371 Balwyn North VIC, Australia 3104
Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425
Postal Address: PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131
See our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy (here)