Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 28-08-2008 09:16 PM

Here is an extract(the start of the article actually) from the second link I posted entitled:
"Christopher Monckton: This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming"

He says:

"It's a shame that George Monbiot didn't check his facts with me before using his column to describe my two recent Sunday Telegraph articles on climate change as "nonsense from start to finish" (This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong, November 14). He implies that a classically trained peer ought not to express scientific opinions. It's still a free country, George. And at least I got the science right.
George says my physics is "bafflingly bad" and contains "downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish". Yet he himself nonsensically refers to "lambda" as a "constant" in the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation. Lambda is not a constant, and it's not a term in the equation.

He wrongly states that the equation only describes "black bodies" that absorb all radiant energy reaching them. No qualified physicist would make such a schoolboy howler."

So firstly, it seems Monckton is a classically trained peer completely refuting your argument of "just peer-reviewed science please"

Secondly ironically, these supposed experts are the ones making the schoolboy howlers.

And finally, yet against Clippo, just like the mainstream media, you resort to unscientific slandering of "crackpot sources" and "conspiracy theories" when ironically MMGW is no more than an unproven conspiracy theory itself.

You are willling to tell enormous whoppers without a grain of evidence and your argument on this one has been totally discredited.

By the way, it isn't up to anyone to "prove" global warming is a con. It is enough for Monckton to prove that original proof of global warming is flawed based on their innacurate assumptions.
Which he has done, regardless of your lie that he is a "crackpot".

**Besoeker** · 28-08-2008 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

"A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

The APS have rather distanced themselves from it.
This is what they say at the begining of Monckton's "learned" article:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Not exactly a glowing endorsment.
OK. Not peer reviewed. But it gets worse.
Read his article and it becomes evident that the published version does not appear to have been proof read, far less peer reviewed. And this from a guy who has a diploma in journalism.

And it gets worse.
Equation 3 is attributed to someone who didn't contribute to the IPCC report.
Figures 1 & 3 show contradictory evidence.
Equation 19 shows a mathematical manipulation that would be shot down in an A-level paper.
That's just a few of the more obvious gaffes from the opening part of the article that I noticed.

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 28-08-2008 10:30 PM

I haven't got a clue what you're referring to Besoeker as you didn't put the basis for your conclusions in your post.

However I look at it this way:

Monckton is apparently a classically trained peer and you are apparently talking heresay with no evidence/documentation to back up your assertions.

As for your claim:
"Equation 3 is attributed to someone who didn't contribute to the IPCC report.", I'd say that was evidence in favour of Monckton's argument

**Besoeker** · 28-08-2008 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I haven't got a clue what you're referring to Besoeker as you didn't put the basis for your conclusions in your post.

In my post I cited the link you posted at the start of this thread.
Isn't your reference enough for you?
Didn't you read Lord Monckton’s paper?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Monckton is apparently a classically trained peer

Well now, that's an interesting point. He read classics at Cambridge and has a diploma in journalism. For his paper to be peer reviewed, one might reasonably conclude that it would have to be reviewed by his peers - other classical scholars and newspaper hacks.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

and you are apparently talking heresay with no evidence/documentation to back up your assertions.

Not so. I refer directly to his paper. You referenced it. Read it.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

As for your claim:
"Equation 3 is attributed to someone who didn't contribute to the IPCC report.", I'd say that was evidence in favour of Monckton's argument

Except that Monckton attributes it to the IPCC.

where (C/C0) is a proportionate increase in CO2 concentration, is given by several formulae in IPCC (2001, 2007). The simplest, following Myrhe (1998),

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 29-08-2008 12:08 AM

I read his conclusions.

I didn't actually read the paper becasue:

a) there was no such "paper" in the link I posted.

b) I trust his understanding of the undelying science is better than mine(or yours)

c) I haven't got so much time.

But if you have the link to his paper, then prove you have read it and paste the link in.
Then there is no doubting you're not just making up your claims.
Or will you avoid doing that ?

You might try to argue that because I haven't read the nitty gritty of the scientific paper (which I am unlikely to fully understand(but I may I don't know)) then that means my argument is worthless, but that's the same fake argument as saying people who do not read the entire Lisbon treaty cannot make a judgement about the EU.

Like so many Britons, I don't need to read the EU treaty to understand the essence of it's contents and to vehemently disapprove of it, becasue other independent and trusted individuals have already done so

Similarly there is absolutely no proof or evidence you can understand science yourself(let alone know better than Monckton) since you seem unable to comprehend a basic sentence most of the time.

Even if I did accept your argument, I could equally say that no-one should believe the supposed scientific evidence for global warming since they cannot understand the underlying science behind it. Snap.

Why does Clippo want people to believe trusted sources when most people will be unable to apply the science themselves ? Doublestandards and hippocrisy at best.

And your claim "Equation 3 is attributed to someone(the IPCC?) who didn't contribute to the IPCC report" confuses me.

But without any source to analyze it that's hardly suprising.

Anyway you made these assertions about Monckton being wrong Besoeker - now back them up with relevant documentation and evidence for a change.....

Not a bunch of quotes that could have been plucked out of thin air.

**Clippo** · 29-08-2008 08:49 AM

The previous post, #15, by YCHTT is a load of tosh.
He wrote:-

You might try to argue that because I haven't read the nitty gritty of the scientific paper (which I am unlikely to fully understand(but I may I don't know)) then that means my argument is worthless, but that's the same fake argument as saying people who do not read the entire Lisbon treaty cannot make a judgement about the EU.

&

Why does Clippo want people to believe trusted sources when most people will be unable to apply the science themselves ? Doublestandards and hippocrisy at best.

In any subject, such science, politics or “factors which lead to the French revolution” or whatever, unless you are an accredited expert in it you can’t be expected to understand all of the pros & cons of the debate.
So therefore one is forced to rely upon the often competing views of real experts – and then make your own opinions based on who you think is the most reliable.

I have stated several times that, in a scientific matters particularly, the opinions of those experts who have an accredited qualification in the actual subject & from an acceptable academic institution hold greater sway over me than ones who don’t.

In response to your claims about Monckton’s article, I have referred you to the openly published opinions of such accredited experts – who have repeatedly debunked Monckton’s (Classics & Journalism expertise) assertions.

Faced with these overwhelming (mathematical) proofs, you resort to your usual fall-back position of denying what is obvious because it destroys your ‘opinions’ and citing the fatuous claims that the accredited experts are somehow corrupt.

The fundamental reason in science particularly, of the reliance placed upon the peer-review process is that it is ‘open’, international and free of ideological interference. No system is 100% perfect but this is as good as you’ll get.

You have not referenced any peer-reviewed publication to support your opinions, (or ones that have subsequently been debunked).
Even, as Besoeker has pointed out, the APS has distanced itself from Monckton’s article.

So, let’s look at the evidence against you on this:-

a) The ? 48,000 strong APS doesn’t actually support Monckton’s arguments on this.
b) The many tens, or hundreds, of thousands of qualified scientists internationally believe in AGW – and therefore disbelieve Monckton and other contrarians.
c) The smaller number of accredited scientists have shown conclusively that Monckton has made serious logical and mathematical errors in his analyses.

& what evidence do you offer in favour ?:-

I trust his understanding of the undelying science is better than mine(or yours)

Dodgy assumptions in both cases I suggest.

**Besoeker** · 29-08-2008 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I read his conclusions.

I don’t see how if you didn’t read his paper.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I didn't actually read the paper becasue:

Yet you see fit to post what was said about it rather than what was in it? Brilliant.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

a) there was no such "paper" in the link I posted.

Equally brilliant. You are on a roll. You can find an article about the paper but you can’t find the paper itself? The title is given in the very article you initially cited. The first hit in google directs you to the paper. How hard is that?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

b) I trust his understanding of the undelying science is better than mine(or yours)

Fair enough. Trust what you want to.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

c) I haven't got so much time.

Your post rate is greater than mine. If, with little effort and time and flawed comprehension, I can find the paper from the article you posted, surely it would have been even easier for you?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

But if you have the link to his paper, then prove you have read it and paste the link in.
Then there is no doubting you're not just making up your claims.

I don’t have to prove anything, Sunshine. If you want to go down the route of questioning my integrity, fine. I have, more than once, invited you to cite anything I have claimed as fact that isn’t. Do so and I will retract it and apologise. That offer, yet to taken up, still stands.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Or will you avoid doing that ?

You cited an article about Monckton’s paper. I have indicated to you where to find it. Do so. Read it. You will then see that my points relate directly to the paper.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You might try to argue that because I haven't read the nitty gritty of the scientific paper (which I am unlikely to fully understand(but I may I don't know)) then that means my argument is worthless, but that's the same fake argument as saying people who do not read the entire Lisbon treaty cannot make a judgement about the EU.

Well, if you haven’t read the paper, far less the nitty gritty, it isn’t a good analogy.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Similarly there is absolutely no proof or evidence you can understand science yourself(let alone know better than Monckton) since you seem unable to comprehend a basic sentence most of the time.

Fair point. It’s very difficult to prove one’s grasp of science in a forum.

I’m not a scientist. My field, and my first degree, is in the applied science of electrical engineering. I readily accept that it doesn’t qualify me to be knowledgeable in the specifics of any other applied science, such as climatology. But, like other applied sciences, it does require me to be able to understand a problem, quantify, calculate, understand the results and come up with a solution. We all need a good understanding of the core fundamentals. Sure, it isn't proof. It is just information given in good faith.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

And your claim "Equation 3 is attributed to someone(the IPCC?) who didn'tcontribute to the IPCC report" confuses me.

It’s simple. No person named Myrhe contributed to the IPCC report

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Anyway you made these assertions about Monckton being wrong Besoeker - now back them up with relevant documentation and evidence for a change.....
Not a bunch of quotes that could have been plucked out of thin air.

Nothing has been plucked out of thin air.

And, finally, as a sop to the groundlings who can't do their own legwork:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

**Wowbanger TIP** · 30-08-2008 06:32 PM

I just don't get this Flat Earth climate revisionism.

How come the self same people who gibber about New World Orders are prepared to accept the garbage "holding action" propaganda from big oil and big business on this one subject?

The fact of the matter is that 90% plus of the scientists who we pay handsomely to study this stuff are unambiguously telling us we are causing ourself serious problems. The precautionary principle is in full effect on this way and we have to assume that they are right.

**Baron von Lotsov** · 31-08-2008 03:01 AM

Oil companies are reaping record profits out of this green business, so why would they want to debunk their golden goose?

Oh you thought they were faking it did you? Well if you did then let me know why BP invested £400 million in a biofuel refinery?

Can you guess how the scam works? Have you noticed how the oil prices have been changing recently? All this talk about cutting back and saving energy, with all other parameters being equal it would mean a fall in the price. You know, as demand drops the price goes down in a free market. So why has it done the reverse? You tell me.

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 31-08-2008 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I don’t see how if you didn’t read his paper.

Because they're clearly stated in the link I posted.(at the bottom)

Looks like you haven't read the article properly

Originally Posted by Besoeker

If, with little effort and time and flawed comprehension, I can find the paper from the article you posted, surely it would have been even easier for you?

As I have already said (with regard to my EU treaty example), you cannot expect non-experts to read the underlying science and make sense of it.
What reason would there be for me to find it,let alone read it ?
To make conclusions based on something I had no scientific understanding of ?

You and Clippo claim to be the voice of reason Besoeker, but surely this is a "no-brainer" for someone apparently so intelligent ?

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I’m not a scientist. My field, and my first degree, is in the applied science of electrical engineering. I readily accept that it doesn’t qualify me to be knowledgeable in the specifics of any other applied science, such as climatology.

So you admit it doesn't qualify you to be knowledgable about this subject, yet you presented a host of claims relating to Monckton's equations ?

Doesnt sound very "scientific" to me.

As I've said you and Clippo may be able to make up a load of rubbish because you say you understand the science(though even you admit you aren't a scientist) but there is no proof whatsoever on that.

As an example, I said that I believed Monckton's understanding of the science was greater than mine or yours.

Clippo said "very doubtful".

My god - doesn't that show how many braincells Clippo really has ?

Clippo is saying that 2 people that claim to be non-scientists in this field have a better understanding of it than Monckton ?

You must think we are stupid !

It seems to me that's the trick you and Clippo are trying to pull on here - pretending you know the science in order to blind people with it.

Yet you expect people to believe yourselves over a classically trained peer ? Do me a favour.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I don’t have to prove anything, Sunshine. If you want to go down the route of questioning my integrity, fine.

Besoeker you said:

"Equation 19 shows a mathematical manipulation that would be shot down in an A-level paper.
That's just a few of the more obvious gaffes from the opening part of the article that I noticed."

I actually read the paper to examine your claims and found that:

Equation 19 is:

κ=dT / dF=
(dF / dT)(to the power of)–1
=(4 ε σ T3)–1 °K W–1 m2.

How is that an obvious gaffe ?

I have studied mathematicss to a very high level, and even I don't even understand it, so how the hell can you say this is an obvious gaffe and on what basis ?

You make claims about equation 19, equation whatever.

Then you squirm away from presenting any evidence supporting your claims that would show you're not necessarily just making it up.

Quite ironic that the very people who are criticizing Monkton's integrity, cannot even prove their own integrity.

You have conceded "I am not a scientist" but you can understand the basis for this ?

I simply don't believe you, without you presenting more specific information about it....

If "nothing has been plucked out of thin air" then show some evidence to back up your claims or accept that people will have to seriously doubt your integrity.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I have, more than once, invited you to cite anything I have claimed as fact that isn’t. Do so and I will retract it and apologise. That offer, yet to taken up, still stands

Ironically that's how global warming works isn't it ?
i.e. "we(the powers that be) say global warming is real, disprove it."

If you make a claim Besoeker the onus is on you to present evidence to back up your claims, not on me to disprove your claims are untrue.

I could easily say to you "I am god - disprove me !" but that's not how science (or law) works unfortunately.

So please, no more talk of "fundamentals" when you cannot even grasp the fundamentals of logic, evidence and proof.

After all that's how backing up a claim works, isn't it ?

If you were presenting your case to a real court it would be thrown out for no evidence.

Thread: Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions