What Do We Think About Climate Change

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by mark775

The earthquake didn't do its job... Another?

Obviously the famine and unemployment failed too. Try pulling the water. That'll take care of you.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

Jimbo,

Still waiting for your response, or was your statement that the UNFCCC defines "climate change" as "climate change caused by human activity" just another one of your made up "facts"?

I've made up no facts. Your AGW bed wetters have made up the 'fact' of a long-lived atmospheric CO2, as has been amply demonstrated on this thread, yet you still believe. Your beloved 'Team' made up the 'fact' a rising temperature record to validate their precious tree ring proxy record, as confirmed in the hacked emails, yet you still believe. SO don't get us started on 'made up' facts; you guys have absolutely NOTHING to be proud of there, my self-righteous friend.

I was working from the very flaky internet at work yesterday, (we have one of those satellite internet connections at work since cable and DSL are not available) so I could not do the research to find the new location of those IPCC docs, but I'm home today so I'll find them.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Maybe because it would be a complete waste of time and resources to give the man another platform from which to spout his ill-conceived, ill-informed, ill-advised 'scientific' beliefs?

Or maybe it's because they know he'll clean their clock. Two 'warmer' (that I know of) have debated him in public and he absolutely shredded each one of their claims (which is not difficult). It was very humiliating.

Originally Posted by troy2000

Monckton is definitely a politician, rather than a scientist. And the first thing a politician who's running way behind in funds, name recognition and credibility does is challenge his opponents to a debate. If he's lucky and manages to goad them into going head-to-head with him, it may give the public the impression he's to be taken as seriously as his opponents.

While this is strictly true from the standpoint of his occupation, it also implies that he is not formally schooled in the sciences, which is untrue. It's a bit like saying that Michael Crighton was 'only' a science fiction author, ignoring the fact that he was also a medical doctor and research scientist before he concentrated on writing fiction.

Originally Posted by troy2000

I see no reason why any legitimate scientists should do Monckton that favor.

Public debate is a time-honored tradition for settling disputed facts. When the facts are on your side, you have nothing to lose. If the facts are on the side of the 'warmers', then Monckton will look like a fool, and no amount of debating prowess can change that. Warmers have fought for years, and continue to fight against giving the AGW narrative a proper hearing in open court. The cases that they have pursued (there have been several so far) avoid this sort of direct questioning of the narrative but focus on one 'warmer' being libeled or slandered by a skeptic. The 'warmer' will then resort to his appeal to the consensus view as justification for his views and motivations, thus making the case for libel or slander WITHOUT directly questioning the validity of the AGW narrative. In each of these cases, a man is on trial for defamation; the narrative IS NOT on trial.


Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

There are a few legitimate scientists who disagree with global warming... not many but a few. Monckton is not one of these legitimate scientists.

Too bad the ones that do disagree are the world's leading climate scientists' the real 'hall of famers', like Christy, Lindzen, Singer and Spencer.

Without the contributions of these guys, we would not know half of what we know about the atmosphere and climate. These guys have made it possible to study the planet's atmosphere as we now can. Not one of the 'warmer' scientists has the stature in the climate sciences as these guys. Without Christy, Singer and Spencer, there would be no satellite temperature record AT ALL.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Link repaired on post #6083, now I have to find out where they moved the other document I referenced but did not link. (I knew I should have saved a copy to my HD )

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by masrapido

Any links/publications/written works resulting from those experiments to support this "scientific" statement?

http://www.surfacestations.org/

2" putt.

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Oh dear...where to start in this jumbled mess of disinformation and unsupported claims?

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Or maybe it's because they know he'll clean their clock. Two 'warmer' (that I know of) have debated him in public and he absolutely shredded each one of their claims (which is not difficult). It was very humiliating.

At the beginning, I suppose.

I've only been able to find evidence of Monckton being involved in one debate over global warming; it was with Tim Lambert, who is hardly a climatologist. Even so, your claim that Monckton 'cleaned his clock' is unsupported by anything I've read.

Do you have links to any transcripts or videos of the two debates? Or even to objective reviews or descriptions of them?

While this is strictly true from the standpoint of his occupation, it also implies that he is not formally schooled in the sciences, which is untrue. It's a bit like saying that Michael Crighton was 'only' a science fiction author, ignoring the fact that he was also a medical doctor and research scientist before he concentrated on writing fiction.

Actually, it's quite true.

Monckton has an MA degree in Classical Studies from Harrow, and a diploma in Journalism from University College, Cambridge. Immediately after receiving them, he went to work as a journalist.

As far as I've been able to discover he has no particular education, training or experience in any of the sciences, period.

Public debate is a time-honored tradition for settling disputed facts. When the facts are on your side, you have nothing to lose. If the facts are on the side of the 'warmers', then Monckton will look like a fool, and no amount of debating prowess can change that.

Nonsense. A legitimate scientist attempting an honest scientific debate with a professional clown and entertainer settles nothing at all, particularly when the clown is a notorious liar.

Monckton has a well-documented history of lies and exaggeration, both inside and outside the subject of climate change.

....he claims he can cure HIV. Seriously. As journalist George Monbiot points out, Monckton has stated in writing that he is "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases...including...HIV." He is prone to such wild fantasies. He has stated that he persuaded Thatcher to use biological weapons in the Falklands War. He falsely claimed he is a member of the House of Lords and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. When challenged, Monckton has admitted to a weakness for telling "stories that aren't actually true."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/hari

Warmers have fought for years, and continue to fight against giving the AGW narrative a proper hearing in open court. The cases that they have pursued (there have been several so far) avoid this sort of direct questioning of the narrative but focus on one 'warmer' being libeled or slandered by a skeptic. The 'warmer' will then resort to his appeal to the consensus view as justification for his views and motivations, thus making the case for libel or slander WITHOUT directly questioning the validity of the AGW narrative. In each of these cases, a man is on trial for defamation; the narrative IS NOT on trial.

That's a dramatic but rather fuzzy and confusing claim. Tell me: how have 'Warmers' fought against giving climate change a 'proper hearing in open court?' What kind of cases have they managed to keep out of what courts?

Name me some of the cases that have been pursued, that dealt with the theory of climate change. I'd love to read up on them. While we're at it, here's the statement made by Andrew Weaver at the time he filed his lawsuit:

"I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused."

http://www.marketwire.com/press-rele...el-1151667.htm

He's suing because the National Post has allegedly been deliberately and maliciously spreading lies about what he's said, done and believes. That's hardly the same thing as using the courts to silence opponents of climate change.

Another quote from the same article by Johann Hari in the Nation, that I agree wholeheartedly with:

...when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative--See! The global warming story is falling apart!--to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can't be retreating because each year it comes back a little... in winter.

[hoytedow]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=road%20apple

def 1.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by masrapido

So you claim that the scientists who had measured the increase in the average daily, monthly and yearly temperatyres had done so measuring the temps of the local carparks and aircons?

Any links/publications/written works resulting from those experiments to support this "scientific" statement?

Wanna links? It's all over the main news and meteo data sites. Scroogle them out.

There you go your upper cast intellect has answered your own question.

And just last week some usanian scientists have confirmed that the temps actually grow when the planes are NOT flying. The phenomena was first detected, measured, verified and confirmed during the blackout of the skies after the so-called bombing of new york. And now the same phenomena is being detected above Europe.

As for the temperature rising when the plane don't fly...well that is a good one. What does it prove exactly? We should get as much planes up in the air as possible then to reduce the temperature of this catastrophic global warming as soon as viable.

[dskira]

blackout of the skies after the so-called bombing of new york

Masrapido in you post # 6122
Can I have presision?
I hope it is not about what I think it is.
The benefice of the doubt.
Please precise your statement.
Daniel

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

... Your AGW bed wetters have made up the 'fact' of a long-lived atmospheric CO2...
Jimbo

Bed wetters?

No, you are the bed wetter Jimbo.

[Boston]

definition according to school of hard knocks

term used when no rational rebuttal can be made, no scientific evidence refuting same exists, and one is unwilling or to old to learn whats new in the world. Its simple really some folks would rather stoop to abusive unimaginative one liners than concede there ill conceived preconceptions were wrong.

some folks just cant admit when they are wrong no mater how ridiculous they end up looking

happens mostly to republicans but the democraps are just as big a bunch of idiots in there own way

hope that helps you out some there Alan

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

Speaking of looking ridiculous, the attached link makes Mann look absolutely ridiculous. Let's hope he follows through with his lawsuit........

http://junkscience.com/Hide_the_decline.html

[Boston]

an aptly named web site
spinning junk science to the uneducated masses rather than admit that the science is so well established that no one else would listen to there spin

thus they take there dog and pony show on the road and see if they can convince anyone that cigarette smoking is good for you

its sooooooo easy to debunk this tripe guys
at least Guillermo attempts to bring in some semblance of science to what you guys keep claiming is a scientific debate
this junk science page is a poster child for the oil and gas PR campaign

didn't any of you guys ever see that flick "Thank You For Smoking"

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/jLWJg8zMn9w/

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Boston

an aptly named web site
spinning junk science to the uneducated masses rather than admit that the science is so well established that no one else would listen to there spin

thus they take there dog and pony show on the road and see if they can convince anyone that cigarette smoking is good for you

its sooooooo easy to debunk this tripe guys
at least Guillermo attempts to bring in some semblance of science to what you guys keep claiming is a scientific debate
this junk science page is a poster child for the oil and gas PR campaign

didn't any of you guys ever see that flick "Thank You For Smoking"

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/jLWJg8zMn9w/

Not a single bit of refutation, just the tired old elitism from a tired old fraud masquerading as someone of importance using cliche attack tactics and instructions written for him by someone else, pathetic.