Thread: Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

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

Looks like you haven't read the article properly

Oh, I read that before I posted my comment. What’s written at the bottom of your link is what someone else said about Monckton’s paper, not what Monckton himself wrote. You would have known that had you read his paper. Instead, your claim to have read his conclusions is based on someone else’s interpretation of the paper.

At best, it's second-hand information.
Would you go to court with that?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I already knew it was summarized information but then again I'm not the one making the claims

You made the claim that you had read his conclusions.
That, by your own admission, you had not read his paper negates that claim.

Classic examples of ‘scattergun’ bull**** from YCHTT in his last few posts.
He wrote:-

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

Clippo said "very doubtful".

No, actually you are doing your usual twisting. What I clearly said was that your ‘assumptions’ about our understanding of science vs Monckton’s was ‘dodgy’.

Here is the exact exchange cut & pasted:

Quote:
I trust his understanding of the undelying science is better than mine(or yours)
Dodgy assumptions in both cases I suggest.

And then you go on to misrepresent what I have said :-

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

Besoeker has stated clearly in an earlier post that he has a degree in an (Applied) Scientific subject. (I make no significant difference here between applied or ‘pure’ because Climate science is a mix of applied & pure) and I have stated before that I have a higher degree in Chemistry.
(PS do you have any ‘qualifications’ YCHTT ?)

I don’t claim, & I don’t think Besoeker does, that even as scientists we have a better understanding of Climate science than Monckton.

However, there are scientists out there much more eminently qualified than me or besoeker or ‘classically-trained’ Monckton and in this ‘paper’ to the APS these experts have ruthlessly exposed Monckton’s faulty logic and inadequacies.

My understanding of the major fatal flaw in Monckton’s logic in this case is that he arbitrarily divided the generally accepted ‘CO2 Climate sensitivity’ figure of ~3.41 from his misinterpretation of statement of Richard Lindzen:-
From Deltoid (and backed up in many other reptubale sources):-

But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that ΔF2x "is about 3.5 watts per square meter". As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen:

we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm

This is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.

From this and some double accounting accusations (even triple some say) all of his flawed conclusions follow.

There is also the claim that if his ‘paper’ to the APS WAS peer-reviewed in even a slightly proper way, these errors would have been spotted and he would have had the opportunity to correct them or retract the paper.

So, YCHTT, if you want to believe a fraudster like Monckton, go ahead, but prepare your Teflon suit so that none of the **** sticks to you.

(Oh, I can’t be bothered to correct all your other misleading statements)
Finally, YCHTT wrote:-

You must think we are stupid !

To repeat, YOU wrote it

YCHTT wrote:-

Which of the conclusions in the article are wrong by the way ?

Well, presumably most of them since he has based all his figures on flawed logic. However, I can’t be bothered to go thro’ them one-by-one. However, from :-

Duae Quartunciae: The APS and global warming: What were they thinking?

Monckton's best case here is simply the alleged lack of mid-troposphere warming. All the maths stuff is so badly flawed that it detracts from the shreds of what argument might be salvaged. The issue of troposphere warming will continue to be a focus of interest and debate; but skeptics invariably fail to take proper account of the large error bars on the old troposphere temperatures they invoke; and with the recent work on wind shear this argument, which was never strong, is looking more and more dubious.

Even this is rather kind to Monckton because the ‘lack of mid-troposphere warming’, touted indirectly recently by David Evans (you remember - the ‘top’ rocket scientist’ – see a previous thread) isn’t now a ‘lack of’.

BVL wrote:-

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?

Or perhaps they thought, like BP in the late 1990's:-
From BP:- - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BP/Amoco was a member of the Global Climate Coalition an industry organization established to promote global warming skepticism but withdrew in 1997, saying "the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.".[41]
In March 2002 Lord Browne of Madingley declared in a speech that global warming was real and that urgent action was needed, saying that "Companies composed of highly skilled and trained people can't live in denial of mounting evidence gathered by hundreds of the most reputable scientists in the world."[42]