Monckton’s 10 Steps for Calming Climate Craziness

I sometimes take a scroll down Spiel Climate’s list of latest links, and usually find a few things of interest.  Yesterday, I found this one containing suggestions for the new administration in the USA by Christopher Monckton.  10 actions to cut back on the CO2-fuelled madness on climate – they look like a pretty useful set to me.  Number 8, I think has already been done.  Here’s hoping the rest will follow.  That would, inter alia, provide a breathing and thinking space for calmer, more considered, less scare-momentum-driven policy discussions.

1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The President of the United States should invite the Secretary of State to serve upon the Secretary General of the United Nations, qua Depositary, immediate notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change and from all protocols or agreements thereunder, including the Paris climate agreement, in terms of Article 25 [withdrawal] of the Convention, which provides for a year’s delay before the withdrawal takes effect.

Under Article 28 [withdrawal] of the Paris climate agreement, notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention entails automatic withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and from any obligations thereunder. Pour politesse, the Government of France, qua Depository of that agreement, should also be given immediate notification of withdrawal. Separate immediate notification of withdrawal should be given to the Secretary General of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2. Termination, on environmental and humanitarian grounds, of all Federal Government payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change: The President should invite the Secretaries of State and to the Treasury to terminate all payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change at the earliest permissible dates, and to report the savings achieved to the White House Chief of Staff at monthly intervals until all such payments have ceased.

3. Termination, on environmental grounds, of all Federal Government subsidies for climate change research and for “renewable” energy. The President should invite the Secretary to the Treasury to terminate all climate subsidies at the earliest permissible dates, and to report the savings to the White House Chief of Staff at monthly intervals until all such subsidies have ceased.

4. Nullification of all previous Executive Orders mandating any action on climate change. The President should invite the Chief of Staff to put before him a draft executive Order nullifying forthwith all Executive Orders concerning climate change and related matters.

5. Program of U.S. humanitarian assistance with the installation of coal-fired power stations and electricity grid infrastructures in regions without electric power. The President and the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury and of Energy should jointly announce a program of U.S. humanitarian assistance with the intention of preventing the millions of deaths each year among the 1.2 billion people who do not have the life-saving benefits of electric power. Coal-fired power is preferable because it is cheaper per TWh generated than any other form of power, and because stocks of coal are plentiful, and because the clean technology of the current generation of power stations is easier for third-world nations to maintain than any other form of power.

6. Independent inquiry into climate change science. The President should invite the Secretary of Energy to establish an independent inquiry into climate change science, to address the questions 1. At what rate will our enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the world? and 2. Is mitigation of global warming today cost-effective compared with adaptation to its consequences the day after tomorrow? Scientists and economists sympathetic to the President’s opinion should be appointed to the inquiry, whose effect will be to provide ample justification for the President’s earlier decisions to resile from international climate agreements and to terminate climate-related payments and subsidies.

7. Abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency: The President should exercise his influence over Congress to enact at the earliest opportunity a Bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s activities run counter to the interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and its functions would be better performed if transferred to the States.

8. Approval for the Keystone XL pipeline: The President, after consulting the cabinet, should at the earliest opportunity announce approval for the Keystone XL pipeline.

9. Reversal of scientifically-unjustifiable measures such as the listing of polar bears as endangered should be carried out at the earliest opportunity.

10. Investigation of scientific and economic frauds in connection with climate change science and economics, and with renewable energy, should be set in hand at once.


Comments welcome below!  But only if relevant to the climate hooha, and the above list.  Not so welcome would be general expressions of joy or woe about the new administration, nor the raising of other issues around it – no matter how tempting for those made febrile by the new president.


  1. I don’t support a sudden slashing of climate budgets for several reasons. You run the risk of ending up with the wrong people left in the system. The die hards, the people with nowhere else to go and reputations to fight tooth and nail for. You get rid of people who might be more open and able to look at the science with fresh eyes. You also risk removing people who need to justify and explain what they’ve done. Much easier to ask the person who wrote the paper or software ‘and why did you do this?’ than first work out what they’ve done, why they did it and if it was wrong. You open the door to be accused of removing people because you’re idealogically opposed to them and not because they are wrong.

    That doesn’t mean that there aren’t likely to be loads of stupid jobs that could be ditched like sustianability awareness officers or climate stress researchers.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Some good points TINY, but are you not mainly addressing what ought to be ‘the earliest permissible dates’, and ‘the earliest opportunity’? You don’t want them to be ‘sudden’, and maybe they need not be. Maybe they can’t be. But if programmes are deemed harmful, is it going to be sufficient merely to ask participants why they are taking part in them? They might well answer ‘because you, the government, are paying me to’.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Shouldn’t no.6 come first? And of “Scientists and economists sympathetic to the President’s opinion should be appointed to the inquiry, …”, what sense is there in that when his ‘opinion’ is probably that of the last person he spoke to?

    Also when talking about clean coal, perhaps ask the Chinese what they think about that and a lack of environmental regulations (such as would result from abolishing the EPA).


  4. Given that climates do change and that humans do indeed cause or modify such changes (land-use change, irrigation, water impoundment) shouldn’t we have some people investigating? In which case aren’t items 2,3 and maybe 7 perhaps too draconian?


  5. This is idealogical craziness. We need to continue research into climate trends and cycles to understand the implications of the common assumptions of stationarity in long-term climate and hydrologic data sets. Bath water and baby come to mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. 1 is partly accomplished by a Thursday EO. UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full member. A 1990 law mandates defunding. Obama ignored that law. Trump has ordered it followed. A 1994 companion law mandated defunding of ‘affiliates’. Obama broke that law with the most recent $500 million to the GCF. All that is left is to formally withdraw from UNFCCC on one years notice. As Monckton notes, Paris follows automatically.


  7. 3. is suggesting that the US government stops subsidising research into man-made global warming and that it ends subsidies for renewable energy – on environmental grounds (not economic also?) This doesn’t sound particularly OTT or ideological. After all, we are continually told that the debate is over, the science is definitive; man-made global warming is real and is a threat to the planet. Indeed, why else would governments have put billions of taxpayers’ money into subsidising renewable energy, if not to avert the ‘real’, scientifically well-defined threat of GHG global warming? So we don’t need to fund any further research into man-made climate change specifically, do we.

    Climate research is a different matter. Of course we need to continue to try to understand how regional climates change and evolve and how the planet as a whole responds to different forcings, in order that we can plan for and adapt to consequential changes in regional climates and trends in weather. CO2 emissions might be one of those forcings, but contrary to alarmist protestations from scientists whose jobs are on the line, renewables companies and landowners whose profits are on the line, green ideologues whose reputations and charitable status are on the line, it looks like anthropogenic GHG forcing is turning out to be a relatively minor issue.


  8. CANMAN, many thanks for that link. I somehow missed that post at the time. I did wonder why the somewhat obscure (to me) site Spiel Climate found with the Monckton 10 seemed to be the only one with it, and why M had not used any of the good climate sites (such as WUWT!) to publish it in. Now I know. I scrolledl through all the comments there and got the impression of a great majority being in favour of all the points, with the abolition of the EPA raising most discussion since some thought that was going too far. Most appeared to support that abolition, however, and a handful also suggested the abolition of NASA and NOAA as well.


  9. POTENTILLA, ‘This is idealogical craziness. We need to continue research into climate …’

    Stopping federal funding does not mean stopping research into climate. There are other sources of research funding around, and the kind of research you refer to need not be expensive. Lamb, for example, did a fair bit on a very modest budget. ALAN, this also applies to your comment.


  10. WILLIAM, 1. ‘Shouldn’t no.6 come first? And of “Scientists and economists sympathetic to the President’s opinion should be appointed to the inquiry, …”, what sense is there in that when his ‘opinion’ is probably that of the last person he spoke to?’
    This inquiry proposal is not quite the one I would like to see, but there is merit in it. An official report from the US government expressing a calmer, more reality-based view of climate variation and our impact on it would be very helpful for all those who rely on ‘authority’ in this area. The education system in particular springs to mind. And the general public too could benefit bigly from such a report, not least to
    increase their peace of mind.

    2. ‘Also when talking about clean coal, perhaps ask the Chinese what they think about that’ I think the Chinese are way ahead on this one, and could indeed provide good advice. See this report for example: (extract: ‘From 2007–2014, Chinese development banks collectively loaned $117.5 billion to fund construction of coal-fired power plants, large hydropower dams and other energy projects in foreign countries.’)

    3. ‘ and a lack of environmental regulations (such as would result from abolishing the EPA).’ Environmental laws and associated regulations exist regardless of whether the EPA sticks around. I believe that in some case the EPA has been accused of exceeding their government-given mandate , and if that is true, it would add to the case for it being abolished.


  11. Hello John, I wasn’t clear. 1. The strange thing is to specify that the panel should share Trump’s opinions. 2. The point was that China has built lots of dirty coal plant. The ‘clean’ in clean coal is clearly mistaken. 3. Isn’t the job of the EPA to enforce rules? Who will do so without the regulator? The courts could, but there is a high barrier to legal redress that I could never afford.


  12. The argument against the EPA is that environmental matters are and should be dealt with as state concerns. The problem is that many environmental matters cross state boundaries and thus need to be dealt with at the federal level. Some concerns are transnational, also requiring federal input or administration. Loss of federal jurisdiction might also cause a “rush to the bottom” if states compete for industry by relaxing environmental protections.


  13. Apparently Myron Ebell (leader of Trump’s EPA transition team) said at a press conference in London today:

    More here:

    “The United States will switch course on climate change and pull out of a global pact to cut emissions, said Myron Ebell, who headed U.S. President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team until his inauguration.”

    The Independent reports that Trump ‘will definitely pull out of Paris climate change deal’


  14. Just heard Myron at his next engagement, at the House of Commons, hosted by Benny Peiser of the GWPF. Benny made the point that the press conference had been easily the best attended they’d ever put on, with all the big names there. One well-known TV journalist admitted to him that they’d ignored the GWPF for ten years (an exaggeration as they started in 2009!) but now what they had to say was relevant.

    I sat next to Danny of this here blog, which was cool, and chatted to David Rose afterwards, because a question David had asked particularly resonated. I need to process everything Myron said. He is no longer a member of the Trump administration, as the transition has ended. Maybe Danny can do a useful summary while I attend to other things.


  15. Correction to point 1: For “pour politesse” read “par politesse.” Trivial, I know, but Monckton’s reputation in the USA as a quaint European egghead might suffer if it came out that he doesn’t really speak French.

    Many of us climate sceptics feel a bit uneasy about Monckton’s position as a major spokesman for the sceptic “movement.” His articles at WattsUpWithThat on the Pause have been excellent. His prose style and his abilities as a public speaker are apparently unrivalled. George Monbiot acknowledged his influence when he treated him to the Full Monbiot years ago, pointing out his many weird unjustifiable claims. Whatever his talents, he has no more qualifications than I or any reader here for offering his advice to the President of the United States.

    Point 2: “Termination, on environmental and humanitarian grounds, of all Federal Government payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change” would cut off aid to poorer states that may have been justified by climate change because of insane past policies, but which may in fact be aimed at useful projects like the eradication of malaria.

    Point 3: “Termination, on environmental grounds, of all Federal Government subsidies for climate change research…” is a gift to Trump’s opponents, since it confirms the accusation that climate sceptics are “anti-science.”

    Point 5, on the other hand, with its offer of energy access to a billion of the poorest on the planet, is an excellent initiative. The official position of the European Union and the USA (plus the OECD, the UN, the World Bank etc) is that Africans need solar panels to power their telephones (which act as banks and links to the company store) rather than mainline power for factories and hospitals. This is a major crime against humanity, backed by Oxfam &co.


  16. The best thing that we could do to eradicate malaria, with the subsequent saving of over a million lives in sub saharian Africa would be to stop the ban on the manufacture of DDT, and allow its use, in controlled ways, in areas where malaria is most prevalent. The main problem was the indiscriminate use of DDT caused the near extinction of the American Bald Eagle. Instead of being smart, and scaling down the use of DDT, to where it was mostly needed to save lives, the of course, as is always done by both alarmists and the government, shut it down completely, thus stopping the positive aspects of the chemical. After all, who cares about the million people who die each year from malaria?


  17. Monckton’s position as a major spokesman for the sceptic “movement.”

    I don’t see that. Marginal. But I guess each sceptic’s mileage varies. I must ‘go dark’ and do some other work for a bit.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I disagree with 7, 8, 9!
    7) Cut the Federal EPA to a staff of 100 One member and one typist for each state to coordinate.
    8) All pipelines so far leak! This one goes across the Ogallala aquifer! even th slightest leak could make the great plains unusable for agriculture! Above ground with triple drip pans perhaps! Better to build a refinery in Alberta. The first citizens would love those great paying jobs.
    9) Alaska is the only state with polar bears. The feds need not be involved! Species preservation is never science.


  19. WILLIAM. Monckton’s words ‘sympathetic to the President’s opinion’ do not exactly map on to ‘share Trump’s opinions’, but that may be a minor quibble. I mapped the words on to my intepretation which is something like ‘we need people who are not zealots in the cause of raising alarm about our CO2 emissions, and who are therefore better qualified to take a calmer, more objective view’. But you may wish to quibble with that!

    Re the Chinese coal plants, I do not know their status with regard to modern, ‘clean’ technology. I do know of their serious air pollution problems in their cities, and poor quality power stations near them would of course add to that. But the thrust of Monckton’s point is surely to call for funding and support of advanced coal-fired power stations, which I believe are remarkably clean.

    Re the EPA, I get the impression they have evolved to see themselves as there to guide the whole world into the ways of eco-righteousness, and hence they are vulnerable to zealotry and attracting extremist leaders. They do claim to ensure that ‘federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively’, but that could be handled by others, not least the States themselves.


  20. ALAN. I agree that there are potential problems with State control, but the USA is still one nation and the States have high standards to expect of each other. Deliberate pollution of, for example, a river shortly before it leaves a State border would surely be capable of redress under federal legal or political options. On the race to the bottom side, that is a risk I would be happy to take in exchange for less central control by an overweening agency. I do not see the American people, including their businesses and corporations, as generally irresponsible. I suppose they have mechanisms for agreeing on shared standards in many areas, including environmental ones.


  21. GEOFF. That some welcome actions can arise from wrong-headed policies and positions is a tricky basis for defending them (see your comments on Point 2). If there is political will for such welcome actions, then they surely could be accommodated under other schemes, for example by increasing the US overseas aid budget. Re Point 3, I suspect the huge sums diverted into ‘climate science’ by a panicked/driven government are not commensurate with the talent pool in that field. Lamb managed to do quite a lot with one desk and half a secretary, and I suspect that climate science could thrive and be of some intellectual and even social value without any federal funding at all. The odd specialist satellite would be handy though, but a lot of them can be justified for weather forecasting and environmental monitoring purposes alone, and need not necessarily come under ‘climate science’. I do not have high expectations of ‘climate science’, you see. I think it has grown out of all proportion to its merit.


  22. John Shade. I believe matters that cross state lines are, by definition, federal responsibilities. States can be responsible, but accidents happen. I suspect the EPA requires a substantial reorganization and pruning, but it retains its remit. To abolish it would, in my view, be a mistake, and I am reminded of bathwater and babies.


  23. I agree that completely abolishing the EPA would be daft. And it’s not going to happen. The environment needs protection and Trump has said he supports this:

    “Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority. President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.”

    One of the muddled myths of the climate debate is the claim that climate sceptics don’t care about the environment.


  24. There’s a video of the press conference at BH too. Myron Ebell comes across as calm and logical.

    There’s a good bit at 23 minutes where Ebell channels Gove on how the American people have rejected the ‘expertariat’, in response to a dumb arrogant question from C4’s Tom Clarke, see my comment at BH.


  25. Paul Matthews: “One of the muddled myths of the climate debate is the claim that climate sceptics don’t care about the environment.”

    Indeed! I care passionately about the environment, and am appalled by the damage done to it in the name of climate alarmism (as I’m discussing with Len Martinez on the Katherine Hayhoe thread). One of the things that annoys me is the claiming of the moral high ground by many (not all) climate alarmists, and treating sceptics as moral pariahs. My scepticism is mainly two-fold (I suppose with other bits added in):

    1. The alarm seems to me to be much overdone. I’m always sceptical of someone who tells me that anything is all bad and can never bring any good with it.

    2. Policy prescriptions stemming from climate alarmism are in many cases directly damaging the environment. Alarmists rarely if ever protest against such foolish policies. That’s one of the reasons why I think it’s a religion. You have to accept the whole kit and caboodle, and can’t complain about policies whilst saying you accept the science, otherwise they’ll label you as a lukewarmer or some such, and won’t accept you into the body of their church.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Richard — One well-known TV journalist admitted to him that they’d ignored the GWPF for ten years (an exaggeration as they started in 2009!) but now what they had to say was relevant.

    It was Tom Clarke, from CH4 — its on the video of the presser. You can also see the Ch4 camera man dancing around, trying to get shots of Ebell’s shoes under the table, after arriving late to the event, and then shouting at Ebell about solar panels. Disruptive, rude and thick — sums Ch4 News up quite well, the broadcaster having long confused shocking for challenging, and making news for reporting news. In another event a few years ago, Clarke admitted to not having a grasp on the technical aspects of climate science and policy, and thus his dependence on experts. Ebell’s response to him identified this shortcoming of green journalism and the ideology it is victim of, precisely.

    The only coverage from green activism/journalism that is worth reading is Ed King’s at Climate Home. No other has attempted to report what Ebell said — the rest have reported from up their own backsides, as is their inclination.


  27. Hello John, qualifications for a review should be scientific. Any hint of there being a political filter make the process worthless. There’s a precedent in BEST.

    Coal plant in Germany might be advanced and relatively clean. But expensive. In China, the reverse. Guess which a president committed to America First might buy for foreigners. There’s 3 choices, with ‘neither’ the most likely.

    Re. the EPA, federal action is sometimes necessary. Like in Europe, only EU rules forced the UK to clean up its beaches.


  28. I think that the President could perhaps wake up some – perhaps even some responsible members of the press, if he notified the research community that refusing to release the facts behind the research of any unclassified research paid for by the taxpayers will bring closure of the effort and complete publication of all available information to the public. This should also apply to ANY data and reports available on completed taxpayer paid research.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. “How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.”

    Unless David Rose is misquoting John Bates there, Mr Martinez, this has nothing to do with your snarky opinion of the Mail on Sunday man. Time for all defenders of the crappy consensus – and that’s Bates’ term – to get off their high horses and learn some real science.


  30. 1. Did NOAA adhere strictly to its own internal verification procedures to produce this paper or not?
    2. Is Karl et al 2015 reproducible using the original code and data?

    1. If not, why not?
    2. If no, then the paper should be withdrawn.


  31. That’s right Jaime. And if the answers go against Thomas Karl, as seems to be the case from what Bates is saying, the Trump administration could make a useful example of the guy. Stripped of pension, that kind of thing. Showing the next generation of climate scientists not to play fast and loose with open data and code, in order to avoid replication, in this manner.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Richard, it seems you really do expect to find reliable information next to links to info on Zoe Ball, Kylie, and Natalie Portman’s peachy derriere. And I mistook you for someone with a somewhat abobe average intelligence. Rose’s article is discussed in the links from me and ATTP. If you still think it is of value, you cannot read.

    Jamie, K15 is reproducible even with *different* code and data – see Zeke’s paper and article. That is the true test of it.


  33. Ah, if only those ‘world leaders’ mentioned in that Daily Mail report (thanks Tiny) had read Bishop Hill in 2015:

    Over the last few days I have been copied in on a great deal of correspondence about a new paper in Science from Tom Karl and colleagues, which has "blatant act of political propaganda" written all over it. The claim is that the pause in surface temperature rises is an artefact of the data and that a great deal of jiggery pokery is peformed on the numbers it is possible to get a graph that shows continued warming. The pause is no more.

    This could only be written with Paris in mind.

    Fortunately, Science distributed the paper to journalists sufficiently early for it to be widely circulated and quite a few people have now had a look. Some of them have even stopped laughing for long enough to write down their thoughts.

    The Karl paper was known to be pisspoor at the time. This tardy piece of whistleblowing (if that is what it is) is but another confirmation of that.


  34. Len. It matters not one iota if others have produced results which appear to confirm the conclusions of K15. What matters is that K15 itself can be verified, because in science, if a study cannot be reproduced exactly using the same data and the same code, then it is worthless and it should certainly not be left in circulation to be cited by other scientists when its findings cannot be verified. If the authors of K15 did not follow internal protocol and their data and code are not available, then K15 should be withdrawn. Simple as that.


  35. LEN MARTINEZ (05 Feb 17 at 8:53 pm)

    Richard, it seems you really do expect to find reliable information next to links to info on … Natalie Portman’s peachy derriere.

    I don’t know anything about Natalie Portman or her peachy derriere. Are you suggesting that David Rose’s information is not reliable because of its proximity to a peachy derrière, or that Natalie’s derrière is not peachy because of its proximity to an article critical of Karl et al, or what?


  36. LEN
    The Zeke Hausfather article at Carbon Brief which you link to is dated 05.02.2017 4:38am, and is a reply to an article by David Rose dated 22:57 GMT, 4 February 2017. Given that CarbonBrief is a UK based website, this suggests that it was commissioned and written in five hours. As journalism (and as damage limitation) this is admirable. As science, less so. It is as full of peas fleeing thimbles as there are neutrinos in a coalmine. Consider this:

    The land record that NOAA used in the Karl et al paper was a sneak peak at their new GHCNv4, which increases the number of global land stations from the 4,400 currently used to around 25,000.

    Well that’s great. And how does multiplying the number of present date sources by 5 NOW improve comparisons with data sources THEN?
    And this:

    If folks don’t like the NOAA data, they will get the exact same story using surface temperature data from any other group, with no detectable sign of a “hiatus” or “pause” through to the present.

    Who ever suggested that there was a pause “through to the present?” It stopped when el Nino started. Zeke and CarbonBrief know that. They are pretending not to know so that they can be quoted tomorrow by “the 97%” at the Guardian and all the other serial liars.
    And so on. This is damage limitation. It will work, no doubt. It’s got million dollar/pound financing, after all, and we haven’t. But we know it’s propaganda, and so do you.


  37. The more I think about it the more delighted I am to be considered abobe average intelligence. Proximity deBates concerning Dr Karl’s peachy derriere bring to mind Spooner’s dictum concerning a Rose by any other smell. The rat’s on me.


  38. There’s a Discussion Thread on The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm ( which I started) over at Bishop Hill. Plenty of stuff there to encourage budget cuts, drastic budget cuts, in outfits such as NOAA and elsewhere. Just added the following comment to it:
    ‘Augean Stables anyone? The recent confirmation, as if any were needed, of the junk science and politically-driven manipulation inherent in the Karl et al. paper of 2015 came too late to remove the influence of that trashy piece of work on the Paris conference, but it is timely in the light of Trump’s interest in reducing federal spending in some areas. Reducing it by at least 80% has been suggested by Professor Lindzen.

    The Mail report is here:
    Breitbart cover it here:
    Here is an extract from the latter link:

    According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.

    The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.”

    Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

    Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.

    Hat-tip stewgreen on Unthreaded (Feb 5, 2017 at 5:38 PM) for reminding us of the fact that the Karletaltrash was exposed soon after publication for what it was, and that was reported and discussion here on Biship Hill:

    A Discussion thread on Temperature Data Corruption has also been started here by Robert Christopher:


  39. Jamie, the best test is independent reproduction by a different team using different methods. That is exactly the idea behind Monckton’s no 6 that is the subject of this thread. And that is exactly what ZH published recently, confirming K15. And indeed that is exactly what BEST did years ago, funded by skeptics, lauded by skeptics … until it confirmed every other study of temperature.

    Richard I said ‘somewhat’ above, don’t get carried away. IQ of 101 would qualify. But if you get your news from the Mail, even that is in doubt.


  40. I’m using the accepted climate method: my IQ over the last 19 years has become, on a number of random occasions, the highest since records began. The extra 0.003 of IQ I showed last year was a tipping point into world-changing genius territory according to the fast-expanding field of Drake intelligence impact studies. It’s all so good and, what’s more, it’s science. We can nit-pick till the cows come home about all this Len but in the end you have to know when you’re beaten.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.