Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 31-08-2008 06:10 AM

Clippos remark "The many tens, or hundreds, of thousands of qualified scientists internationally believe in AGW – and therefore disbelieve Monckton"

is becasue they(and the IPCC) are paid to believe and "prove" it:

Those who are not paid to believe it are more independent and therefore do not believe it - this explains why those without a vested interest in global warming tend to disagree with it, and this is why they should be trusted above those with personal interests.

Like how the same people who had an interest in taking this country to war for profit and oil "believed" Iraq had WMD's.

Where there is self interest, there can be no indpendence Clippo.

The truth is these scientific computer models can be manipulated to show anything they want to show and the IPCC's record for adhering to these so called "scientific" principles is very debatable to say the least:

Consider this article:

nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition."

Another fruitcake or someone that has been "debunked" by the moral majority ?

And as my initial article made clear:

"Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

"“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”"

If I am a "conspiracy" theorist then there are also a lot of prominent climatologists and professors who are too.

**Besoeker** · 31-08-2008 08:09 AM

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?

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 31-08-2008 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Besoeker

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?

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

Maybe we could take a leaf out of the IPCC's book and call it "Notes for policymakers"

Have you worked out your answer to the equation yet ?

**Besoeker** · 31-08-2008 08:39 AM

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.

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 31-08-2008 09:07 AM

Whereas you have apparently read the paper and made several claims, but cannot substantiate any of them.

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

**Clippo** · 31-08-2008 09:46 AM

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

**Clippo** · 31-08-2008 09:56 AM

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’.

**Clippo** · 31-08-2008 10:10 AM

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]

**C_steam** · 31-08-2008 10:54 AM

Look - AGW (or not) doesn't matter. What matters is that, for whatever reason, the climate is changing and urgent work needs to be done. taxation is too blunt an instrument, what needs to take place is global change and population stabilisation, and a move to a more agrarian based world which respects the planet.

**youcanhandlethetruth** · 31-08-2008 10:59 AM

Ok Clippo, let's try to clear this one up....

I said:

"I trust his[Monckton's] understanding of the undelying science is better than mine(or yours[Besoeker])"

Clippo, you said:

"Dodgy assumptions in both cases I suggest. "

Actually when you said "both" I thought this was referring to 1) myself and 2) Besoeker but maybe you were reffering to 1) Monckton and 2) myself ?

Anyhow, you now say:
"What I clearly said was that your ‘assumptions’ about our understanding of science vs Monckton’s was ‘dodgy’."

Well I can't see where you said that but anyway to get to the heart of the argument.....

You say(and I agree) that:

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

Ok now you're talking......

So in summary, what you're basically saying Clippo, is that

a) You, I or Besoeker don't know better than Monckton
b) Despite my, your and Besoeker's lack of knowledge on the subject matter in relation to Mockton (and Besoekers unsubstantiated claims that Monckton is "wrong" with specific reference to certain equations) that:
c) there are other better qualified scientists who have "debunked" Monckton's argument.

So you're basically saying to trust the people that are better qualified in the subject matter to form a judgement even though you admit Monckton is better qualified than yourself to make a judgement on this matter ?!!??

You're making a judgement of who is better qualified on the subject when you admit you are less qualified than the person you are criticizing ?!!

And you imply it's all a matter of trust and credibility ?

You are able to make a better judgement about who is better qualified than Monckton (who obviously would not agree with you or the "experts" you cite that "debunk" him or those individuals who Monckton originally criticized ?)

You're having a laugh !

A strange, fraudulent and totally unscientific conclusion/hypothesis to make by all accounts.

And you say I'm talking **** ?

No wonder people shouldn't trust "your word" on the subject !

And quite right too.....

Thread: Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions