Thread: Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

I’ll put this as politely as I can YCHTT :-
You are twisting what I have written previously, (& probably what Besoeker has written), and uttering your usual load of …….

You wrote:-

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

a) You, I or Besoeker don't know better than Monckton

No I am not – what I am saying is that your ‘assumption’ that we 3 don’t know better than Monckton on this subject is flawed because you have no idea what I or Besoeker know about it. Judging by your ‘arguments’ you don’t seem to know yourown mind either. Just because Monckton has said something that you want so much to believe in, you have lost all sense of ability to question what he has said and what he really knows
When I said :-

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

, I simply mean that.
I simply do not know what Monckton really knows, or Besoeker for that matter so how can I claim one thing or another.
This leads on then to your point c) – since b) is a conditional preamble to

c) there are other better qualified scientists who have "debunked" Monckton's argument.

YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. ..........................

&

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 ?!!??

Since I don’t admit that Monckton is better than me – (I said above I don’t know – read it again), I don’t trust HIS judgment on this matter.

However, I do trust the judgment of people that are demonstrably better qualified than him (by way of scientific degrees and peer-reviewed publications) –and who have demonstrated many times – not only in this current topic – that Monckton makes silly & devious arguments in his logic.
&

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.....

Quite loopy !!!!!!

Now, back to the nitty gritty :-

Who do you believe is correct in the logic & mathematics of this specific debate (the ‘disproof’ of GW) ? – “Classically trained journalist” Monckton or the vast majority of other ‘experts’ with degrees & higher degrees in Physics, Mathematics and any other science allied to Climatology.

C_Steam wrote:-

Look - AGW (or not) doesn't matter. What matters is that, for whatever reason, the climate is changing………………….

Well, I think the true cause does matter or how else are we going to tackle “……..urgent work needs to be done.” in the most efficient manner.

(Analogy - if you see water pouring thro' your living room ceiling, what better to do ? mend the leaking pipe in your loft or put a bucket under the leak and assume the leaking pipe isn't the cause of the problem)

I agree that

…….. what needs to take place is global change and population stabilisation, and a move to a more agrarian based world which respects the planet.

The devil is in the detail in this case – your suggestions even though a bit vague, are sound but ‘how’ is the real problem. There is also the small matter of how much time we have to ‘change’ in.

It seems to me that the consensus view of our major problems is over emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, and destruction of tropical rainforests (primary CO2 absorbing feedback of the Carbon cycle) coupled with the massive other Ocean pollution and atmospheric pollution.

If you can’t accept that then you have to persuade everybody why they are wrong. The approach espoused by ‘USA’ big business, (who in fact really believe in AGW) that GW will probably be beneficial to ‘mankind’ is cynically flawed by selfishness over their business.
As one blogger put it somewhere recently – do they really think they will be immune from the effects of CC ? A dose of Pacal’s-Wager thinking would be in order all round now.

Therefore, we should tackle the known problems first – which is what the world community, albeit very hesitantly, is trying to do.

In my view, apart from the ‘fossil fuels’ issues, of which finite reserves is a longer -term problem, economic growth has traditionally not taken into account the finiteness of other Earth resources.

I agree to some extent that taxation is probably too blunt an instrument to tackle Climate change but...

1. In a democracy, it is practically the only 'tool' the gov. has to persuade the difficult members of society to comply,
2. How are those countries now dependent on say China & India for industrial goods going to persuade them to cut back - some sort of Carbon Tax on imports ?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

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

What information have I missed in support of what I said about his article?
Be specific, direct, and succint.

Originally Posted by Clippo

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

I agree. And it would be arrogant to make such a claim.
But that does not preclude us from being able to make informed criticism of his erudite publication.