Remember me
▼ Content

Christopher Monckton Climate Sensitivity


Christopher Monckton Climate Sensitivity30-03-2017 00:44
student33
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
I wonder IF anyone might know of a credible rebuttle to Monckton's argument here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg

His argument is essentially that the IPCC cherry pick data when deciding where on the feedback hyperbola to draw estimates of climate sensitivity. This leads to exaggerated temperature projections of up to 8C as in their AR5.

Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that procvide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?
Edited on 30-03-2017 00:50
30-03-2017 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
student33 wrote:
I wonder IF anyone might know of a credible rebuttle to Monckton's argument here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg

His argument is essentially that the IPCC cherry pick data when deciding where on the feedback hyperbola to draw estimates of climate sensitivity. This leads to exaggerated temperature projections of up to 8C as in their AR5.

Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that procvide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?


It's actually simpler than that.

It is actually not possible to determine the global temperature with any degree of useful accuracy. The problem is a mathematical one, not one of who says who is cherry picking data.

Statistical summaries of something like a global temperature would require measurement of far more detail than we have instruments for in the foreseeable future. It doesn't work to simply average the thermometers we have, since temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile.

Interpolating missing points is manufacturing data to replace missing data.

Removing 'city' thermometers and the like is biasing the data through pre-selection.

Neither is allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling the thermometers we have and just calling it good is known as 'sampling by opportunity', also not allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling must be by random selection (randN, or the same kind of random number as a deck of cards), that is independent of any aspect of the data itself. This means things like geographic position or concentration in one area introduces bias. Trying to compensate for it also introduces bias. Time is another factor. All source data must be obtained at the same time, since the temperature changes as the Earth spins, storms move, etc.

Anybody that says they have a global temperature or that it is moving up or down is making stuff up.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 01:35
student33
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Into the Night wrote:
student33 wrote:
I wonder IF anyone might know of a credible rebuttle to Monckton's argument here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg

His argument is essentially that the IPCC cherry pick data when deciding where on the feedback hyperbola to draw estimates of climate sensitivity. This leads to exaggerated temperature projections of up to 8C as in their AR5.

Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that procvide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?


It's actually simpler than that.

It is actually not possible to determine the global temperature with any degree of useful accuracy. The problem is a mathematical one, not one of who says who is cherry picking data.

Statistical summaries of something like a global temperature would require measurement of far more detail than we have instruments for in the foreseeable future. It doesn't work to simply average the thermometers we have, since temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile.

Interpolating missing points is manufacturing data to replace missing data.

Removing 'city' thermometers and the like is biasing the data through pre-selection.

Neither is allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling the thermometers we have and just calling it good is known as 'sampling by opportunity', also not allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling must be by random selection (randN, or the same kind of random number as a deck of cards), that is independent of any aspect of the data itself. This means things like geographic position or concentration in one area introduces bias. Trying to compensate for it also introduces bias. Time is another factor. All source data must be obtained at the same time, since the temperature changes as the Earth spins, storms move, etc.

Anybody that says they have a global temperature or that it is moving up or down is making stuff up.


Great. I was hoping for a direct critique of Monckton's argument of network feedback, specifically the part where he introduces Bode's feedback circuit and applies it to how the IPCC Calculate climate sensitivty.
30-03-2017 04:32
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
student33 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
student33 wrote:
I wonder IF anyone might know of a credible rebuttle to Monckton's argument here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg

His argument is essentially that the IPCC cherry pick data when deciding where on the feedback hyperbola to draw estimates of climate sensitivity. This leads to exaggerated temperature projections of up to 8C as in their AR5.

Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that procvide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?


It's actually simpler than that.

It is actually not possible to determine the global temperature with any degree of useful accuracy. The problem is a mathematical one, not one of who says who is cherry picking data.

Statistical summaries of something like a global temperature would require measurement of far more detail than we have instruments for in the foreseeable future. It doesn't work to simply average the thermometers we have, since temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile.

Interpolating missing points is manufacturing data to replace missing data.

Removing 'city' thermometers and the like is biasing the data through pre-selection.

Neither is allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling the thermometers we have and just calling it good is known as 'sampling by opportunity', also not allowed under the demands of statistical analysis.

Sampling must be by random selection (randN, or the same kind of random number as a deck of cards), that is independent of any aspect of the data itself. This means things like geographic position or concentration in one area introduces bias. Trying to compensate for it also introduces bias. Time is another factor. All source data must be obtained at the same time, since the temperature changes as the Earth spins, storms move, etc.

Anybody that says they have a global temperature or that it is moving up or down is making stuff up.


Great. I was hoping for a direct critique of Monckton's argument of network feedback, specifically the part where he introduces Bode's feedback circuit and applies it to how the IPCC Calculate climate sensitivty.


As you know, almost all of the research on feedbacks involves the use of general circulation models. The following paper indicates that the question of positive or negative feedbacks is still not settled.

Recent progress toward reducing the uncertainty in tropical low cloud feedback and climate sensitivity: a review
Youichi KamaeEmail authorView ORCID ID profile, Tomoo Ogura, Hideo Shiogama and Masahiro Watanabe
Geoscience LettersOfficial Journal of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)20163:17
DOI: 10.1186/s40562-016-0053-4© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 18 April 2016Accepted: 11 June 2016Published: 23 June 2016

I feel there has been a bias in the allocation of research grants towards confirming positive water vapor and cloud feedback and, since models are being used, they naturally will tend toward that type of confirmation. If there is cherry picking involved, it is in the funding of research. The IPCC's stated mission is to research AGW. If you're looking funding to research negative feedback, or to look at feedback without bias, good luck.
30-03-2017 13:26
spot
★★★☆☆
(949)
Hi I don't know about peer reviewed journals but there has been much written about Lord Monckton's work

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

For example, hope that helps.
15-04-2017 09:42
Billio
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
The thread does not work. Here is a new one :
https://youtu.be/h51IP3Z_A9A

The replies here seem to be deliberately misleading. it has nothing to do with the measurement of climate sensitivity.
What Monckton says is that the formula used to calculate the feedback by climate scientists is flawed. This leads to distortions at either end of the temperature scale which then leads to grossly exaggerated predictions of the feedback.

It is not a question of the science but of the maths and for this reason is a potentially devastating critique. If the climate scientists are unable to fault his argument then that is a very serious blow to their credibility.

The maths begins at about 24.00 onwards.
Edited on 15-04-2017 09:46
18-04-2017 14:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
student33 wrote:Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that procvide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?

Why do you want "peer reviewed" journals, like that means anything?

Why don't you instead just get the definitive science used by the IPCC? That should be more than rebuttle enough, yes? Of course if there is no science behind the IPCC's dogma then Monckton is obviously in the right.

This issue seems pretty cut and dried. Let us know what you find out.


.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 15:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Billio wrote: It is not a question of the science but of the maths

Correction: It is not a question of science but of WACKY religious dogma. There is no such thing as unpowered "feedbacks" in nature. The Global Warming religion, however, has stories about "feedbacks" that are powered by the Climate goddess. Those myths are not based in science and thus any "maths" will be gibberish.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote:Hi I don't know about peer reviewed journals but there has been much written about Lord Monckton's work

Typical warmizombie. If you cannot refute the message then malign the messenger.

Well done, spot!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 15:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Frescomexico wrote: As you know, almost all of the research on feedbacks involves the use of general circulation models.

Please be careful when throwing the word "models" around. You aren't talking about falsifiable models that predict nature, i.e. science. You are referring to computer simulations that are based on whatever assumptions, supported or otherwise, the programmer arbitrarily threw in that fit his/her fancy that day.

That kind of simulation provides exactly the results it's programmed to produce.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 15:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
student33 wrote:
I wonder IF anyone might know of a credible rebuttle to Monckton's argument here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg

His argument is essentially that the IPCC cherry pick data when deciding where on the feedback hyperbola to draw estimates of climate sensitivity. This leads to exaggerated temperature projections of up to 8C as in their AR5.

Are there any peer reviewed journals, PR otherwise, that provide a counter argument to Monckton's argument here?


This video is apparently private and I cannot figure out how to get access.

As for the IPCC - This is a political body and not a scientific one. That should tell you all you need to know about them.
18-04-2017 16:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Billio wrote:
The thread does not work. Here is a new one :
https://youtu.be/h51IP3Z_A9A

The replies here seem to be deliberately misleading. it has nothing to do with the measurement of climate sensitivity.
What Monckton says is that the formula used to calculate the feedback by climate scientists is flawed. This leads to distortions at either end of the temperature scale which then leads to grossly exaggerated predictions of the feedback.

It is not a question of the science but of the maths and for this reason is a potentially devastating critique. If the climate scientists are unable to fault his argument then that is a very serious blow to their credibility.

The maths begins at about 24.00 onwards.


The entire idea of CO2 being a "greenhouse gas" was shown to be false as long ago as 1909.

If you are good at math you can plainly see how and why CO2 has NO effect on the climate.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

They even have tests that can be applied in grade school classrooms that will disprove "positive" feedback claims.
18-04-2017 16:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
IBdaMann wrote:
Frescomexico wrote: As you know, almost all of the research on feedbacks involves the use of general circulation models.

Please be careful when throwing the word "models" around. You aren't talking about falsifiable models that predict nature, i.e. science. You are referring to computer simulations that are based on whatever assumptions, supported or otherwise, the programmer arbitrarily threw in that fit his/her fancy that day.

That kind of simulation provides exactly the results it's programmed to produce.


.


Be careful using that sort of language. As a rule the programmers are using what they believe to be the most accurate data available. They are being fed the data that others are using to "prove" what they wish to prove. Most scientists don't program and I'm an exception since that is the what I do.

Among other things I have had my lungs damaged because physicists improperly modeled the way that a military poison gas detector was supposed to react. I could not get the damn thing to properly show the amount of gas in the chamber properly at lower levels. These are the most dangerous because you may not know you've been poisoned for several hours or even days. Or you might stay in an area long enough to be a fatal dose because you can't detect these lower levels.

Working for weeks I could not get the detector to respond properly.

Finally I modeled it myself using my own mathematics and discovered a HUGE discrepancy in the math. I was excited to reprogram the detector to my math and turned on the pumps to empty the chamber.

We were required to wait 45 minutes to allow the chamber to be pumped clean. And of course I knew that it is normal to give a 100% safety factor for these sorts of extreme dangers.

But in fact, like physicists, they gave NO margin of safety. So when I in my excitement went in after 30 minutes I had my lungs burned and scarred. I felt nothing at the time and reprogrammed the detector and it operated 100% correctly.

I was racing bicycles at the time and even though I was a category 5, I could ride on the back of the Cat 3 group. I knew something was really wrong when I couldn't keep up with the Cat 5's. I went to a doctor approved by the military and he discovered the lung damage.

As a side note - those detectors were used in Iraq to discover large amounts of poison gas. These were destroyed ON SITE which is the proper method.

So the "No WMD" people were absolute and complete liars. They have been part of the group the Lord Monckton were speaking of in the youtube video.

We even seized 550 tons of uranium yellowcake. Does this sound like we didn't know what we were doing?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WPYwBNLys2w
And this from NBC - the most Marxist media in the US.

Pay very close attention of Lord Monckton in the video.
18-04-2017 16:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
spot wrote:
Hi I don't know about peer reviewed journals but there has been much written about Lord Monckton's work

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

For example, hope that helps.


I would really like to meet you in person.
18-04-2017 19:05
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: I would really like to meet you in person.

Spot..... ya don' wantta meet some-un named "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up".
18-04-2017 19:08
spot
★★★☆☆
(949)
Wake wrote:

I would really like to meet you in person.


Why?

I wouldn't want to meet you, you come across as mentally unwell.

Is this some kind of threat? I don't have any training in hurting people but I worked in a nursing home for a bit so the skills I learned there should take care of you, FYI I look after myself you did imply that you were retired so I recon that I have at least 30 years on you and guns aren't allowed over here but I don't really need the stress of such an encounter though.

And what has this got to do about anything?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-04-2017 20:46
spot
★★★☆☆
(949)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Hi I don't know about peer reviewed journals but there has been much written about Lord Monckton's work

Typical warmizombie. If you cannot refute the message then malign the messenger.

Well done, spot!


.


The link discusses what Lord Monckton has written on the subject.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-04-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

I would really like to meet you in person.


Why?

I wouldn't want to meet you, you come across as mentally unwell.

Is this some kind of threat? I don't have any training in hurting people but I worked in a nursing home for a bit so the skills I learned there should take care of you, FYI I look after myself you did imply that you were retired so I recon that I have at least 30 years on you and guns aren't allowed over here but I don't really need the stress of such an encounter though.

And what has this got to do about anything?


If you could take care of yourself why would you take that as a threat? I would love to meet you and take your picture and display to the whole world the sort of people that AGW True Believers are. You would be surprised that the social media is just as biased as every high school in the USA. So with your anonymity you think you are accepted. But without it that would quite rapidly show to be not quite so clear cut.

And perhaps you have 40 years on me. The last man who thought I was too old cannot use his right hand anymore. I let him swing at me and warned him away three times but the third time was the charm.
18-04-2017 23:22
spot
★★★☆☆
(949)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

I would really like to meet you in person.


Why?

I wouldn't want to meet you, you come across as mentally unwell.

Is this some kind of threat? I don't have any training in hurting people but I worked in a nursing home for a bit so the skills I learned there should take care of you, FYI I look after myself you did imply that you were retired so I recon that I have at least 30 years on you and guns aren't allowed over here but I don't really need the stress of such an encounter though.

And what has this got to do about anything?


If you could take care of yourself why would you take that as a threat? I would love to meet you and take your picture and display to the whole world the sort of people that AGW True Believers are. You would be surprised that the social media is just as biased as every high school in the USA. So with your anonymity you think you are accepted. But without it that would quite rapidly show to be not quite so clear cut.

And perhaps you have 40 years on me. The last man who thought I was too old cannot use his right hand anymore. I let him swing at me and warned him away three times but the third time was the charm.


Good for you, I take care of myself, gym, cycle to work, eat healthy. I don't really have much experience fighting people who are of sound mind and if any of the people I "fought with" lost the use of their hand I would be in big trouble.

Anyway all that's academic I take it you did not mean to cause me physical harm and only wished to dox me. Frankly I would be more embarrassed about the time wasted talking to obviously insane people such as yourself rather then my stance on a scientific issue.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-04-2017 23:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

I would really like to meet you in person.


Why?

I wouldn't want to meet you, you come across as mentally unwell.

Is this some kind of threat? I don't have any training in hurting people but I worked in a nursing home for a bit so the skills I learned there should take care of you, FYI I look after myself you did imply that you were retired so I recon that I have at least 30 years on you and guns aren't allowed over here but I don't really need the stress of such an encounter though.

And what has this got to do about anything?


If you could take care of yourself why would you take that as a threat? I would love to meet you and take your picture and display to the whole world the sort of people that AGW True Believers are. You would be surprised that the social media is just as biased as every high school in the USA. So with your anonymity you think you are accepted. But without it that would quite rapidly show to be not quite so clear cut.

And perhaps you have 40 years on me. The last man who thought I was too old cannot use his right hand anymore. I let him swing at me and warned him away three times but the third time was the charm.


Good for you, I take care of myself, gym, cycle to work, eat healthy. I don't really have much experience fighting people who are of sound mind and if any of the people I "fought with" lost the use of their hand I would be in big trouble.

Anyway all that's academic I take it you did not mean to cause me physical harm and only wished to dox me. Frankly I would be more embarrassed about the time wasted talking to obviously insane people such as yourself rather then my stance on a scientific issue.


By "insane" you no doubt mean anyone that doesn't share your religious belief in man-made global warming?

The facts are piling up and your religion is beginning to take on the look of all extremist religions: take up the same cry as all religions and claim that no one that doesn't share your religion be destroyed one way or another.

However, now that the word is out that those scientists who actually believe man-made global warming are a tiny minority and that virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up, because there is no longer a price on their head for doing so, your religion is falling out of the sky faster than the Hindenburg.
19-04-2017 00:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

I would really like to meet you in person.


Why?

I wouldn't want to meet you, you come across as mentally unwell.

Is this some kind of threat? I don't have any training in hurting people but I worked in a nursing home for a bit so the skills I learned there should take care of you, FYI I look after myself you did imply that you were retired so I recon that I have at least 30 years on you and guns aren't allowed over here but I don't really need the stress of such an encounter though.

And what has this got to do about anything?


If you could take care of yourself why would you take that as a threat? I would love to meet you and take your picture and display to the whole world the sort of people that AGW True Believers are. You would be surprised that the social media is just as biased as every high school in the USA. So with your anonymity you think you are accepted. But without it that would quite rapidly show to be not quite so clear cut.

And perhaps you have 40 years on me. The last man who thought I was too old cannot use his right hand anymore. I let him swing at me and warned him away three times but the third time was the charm.


Good for you, I take care of myself, gym, cycle to work, eat healthy. I don't really have much experience fighting people who are of sound mind and if any of the people I "fought with" lost the use of their hand I would be in big trouble.

Anyway all that's academic I take it you did not mean to cause me physical harm and only wished to dox me. Frankly I would be more embarrassed about the time wasted talking to obviously insane people such as yourself rather then my stance on a scientific issue.


By "insane" you no doubt mean anyone that doesn't share your religious belief in man-made global warming?

The facts are piling up and your religion is beginning to take on the look of all extremist religions: take up the same cry as all religions and claim that no one that doesn't share your religion be destroyed one way or another.

However, now that the word is out that those scientists who actually believe man-made global warming are a tiny minority and that virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up, because there is no longer a price on their head for doing so, your religion is falling out of the sky faster than the Hindenburg.

Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.
19-04-2017 03:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1026)
Wake wrote:
And perhaps you have 40 years on me. The last man who thought I was too old cannot use his right hand anymore. I let him swing at me and warned him away three times but the third time was the charm.


Oh this is good! Testosterone overload on the climate forum! I'm sure we can link this to global warming.

We'll name the fight "Wake up Spot".
Payperview?



Edited on 19-04-2017 03:48
19-04-2017 13:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


19-04-2017 17:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!
19-04-2017 18:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.
19-04-2017 18:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.
19-04-2017 19:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.


The best day in your life you are a moron.

The growth of CO2 also matches: The average life expectancy in years around the world, the world's population growth and the Gross Domestic Product of the USA per person.

Wikipedia has copied the fine upstanding website of John Cook - SkepticalScience who derived that number.

"Here is Cook's summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.""

Of course it was Cook who CHOSE the papers that qualified. What's more no research grants have been government funded that so much as mention the slightest doubt in the very idea of man-made climate change. And since the overwhelming majority of research subsidies come from the government these days this means that only companies that have a vested interest in REAL research are financing anti-AGM research so that some POS like you can tell us that since it was financed by Exxon you can't count it as "real science".

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification"—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook's admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don't say) that there is some man-made global warming and don't quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral."

—Dr. Richard Tol

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . ."

—Dr. Craig Idso

"Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation."

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . ."

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It's based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."

And it's time you jump off a bridge because liars like you deserve nothing more kind than being shown as the SOB you are.
19-04-2017 20:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.


The best day in your life you are a moron.

The growth of CO2 also matches: The average life expectancy in years around the world, the world's population growth and the Gross Domestic Product of the USA per person.

Wikipedia has copied the fine upstanding website of John Cook - SkepticalScience who derived that number.

"Here is Cook's summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.""

Of course it was Cook who CHOSE the papers that qualified. What's more no research grants have been government funded that so much as mention the slightest doubt in the very idea of man-made climate change. And since the overwhelming majority of research subsidies come from the government these days this means that only companies that have a vested interest in REAL research are financing anti-AGM research so that some POS like you can tell us that since it was financed by Exxon you can't count it as "real science".

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification"—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook's admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don't say) that there is some man-made global warming and don't quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral."

—Dr. Richard Tol

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . ."

—Dr. Craig Idso

"Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation."

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . ."

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It's based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."

And it's time you jump off a bridge because liars like you deserve nothing more kind than being shown as the SOB you are.

My post didn't even mention Cook's paper, you nasty little shit.
19-04-2017 22:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.


The best day in your life you are a moron.

The growth of CO2 also matches: The average life expectancy in years around the world, the world's population growth and the Gross Domestic Product of the USA per person.

Wikipedia has copied the fine upstanding website of John Cook - SkepticalScience who derived that number.

"Here is Cook's summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.""

Of course it was Cook who CHOSE the papers that qualified. What's more no research grants have been government funded that so much as mention the slightest doubt in the very idea of man-made climate change. And since the overwhelming majority of research subsidies come from the government these days this means that only companies that have a vested interest in REAL research are financing anti-AGM research so that some POS like you can tell us that since it was financed by Exxon you can't count it as "real science".

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification"—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook's admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don't say) that there is some man-made global warming and don't quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral."

—Dr. Richard Tol

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . ."

—Dr. Craig Idso

"Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation."

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . ."

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It's based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."

And it's time you jump off a bridge because liars like you deserve nothing more kind than being shown as the SOB you are.

My post didn't even mention Cook's paper, you nasty little shit.


You piece of offal - the graph you showed USED the numbers from wikipedia that used the numbers from Cook's site. But you aren't even bright enough to know that are you?

Are you aware of what happens at CO2 levels below 200 ppm? Photosynthesis ceases. So at levels of 180 ppm the earth was dying. And CS's like you were telling us that all of the Earth's animals that were dying because of man. You POS hadn't even the basic knowledge that any 12 year old should have.

Today photosynthesis is growing and the animal life all over this planet is increasing but to bastards like you that is a bad thing.

All of the officers of the "environmental" organizations have at one time or another said that man is a pox upon this planet.

Hitler killed 10's of million, the Marxists killed 100's of million and the environmentalists want to kill billions. That is YOU and everything you stand for.

The correct level of CO2 on this Earth should be at 2000 to 2500 ppm. But you ain't got the intelligence to know that.

Life formed on this Earth with CO2 levels of about 40%. Animals with levels about 24%. Humans are designed to survive levels of 5,000 ppm or higher.

You should be arrested and charged and put in a jail for the rest of your life.
19-04-2017 23:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.


The best day in your life you are a moron.

The growth of CO2 also matches: The average life expectancy in years around the world, the world's population growth and the Gross Domestic Product of the USA per person.

Wikipedia has copied the fine upstanding website of John Cook - SkepticalScience who derived that number.

"Here is Cook's summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.""

Of course it was Cook who CHOSE the papers that qualified. What's more no research grants have been government funded that so much as mention the slightest doubt in the very idea of man-made climate change. And since the overwhelming majority of research subsidies come from the government these days this means that only companies that have a vested interest in REAL research are financing anti-AGM research so that some POS like you can tell us that since it was financed by Exxon you can't count it as "real science".

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification"—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook's admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don't say) that there is some man-made global warming and don't quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral."

—Dr. Richard Tol

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . ."

—Dr. Craig Idso

"Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation."

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . ."

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It's based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."

And it's time you jump off a bridge because liars like you deserve nothing more kind than being shown as the SOB you are.

My post didn't even mention Cook's paper, you nasty little shit.


You piece of offal - the graph you showed USED the numbers from wikipedia that used the numbers from Cook's site. But you aren't even bright enough to know that are you?

Are you aware of what happens at CO2 levels below 200 ppm? Photosynthesis ceases. So at levels of 180 ppm the earth was dying. And CS's like you were telling us that all of the Earth's animals that were dying because of man. You POS hadn't even the basic knowledge that any 12 year old should have.

Today photosynthesis is growing and the animal life all over this planet is increasing but to bastards like you that is a bad thing.

All of the officers of the "environmental" organizations have at one time or another said that man is a pox upon this planet.

Hitler killed 10's of million, the Marxists killed 100's of million and the environmentalists want to kill billions. That is YOU and everything you stand for.

The correct level of CO2 on this Earth should be at 2000 to 2500 ppm. But you ain't got the intelligence to know that.

Life formed on this Earth with CO2 levels of about 40%. Animals with levels about 24%. Humans are designed to survive levels of 5,000 ppm or higher.

You should be arrested and charged and put in a jail for the rest of your life.

Didn't you read the text under the chart? The numbers are from completely different studies, your utter loon. Every post you write consists almost completely of lies, random bizarre statements or irrelevant crap. Spot was right: you are completely unhinged. Seek help.
19-04-2017 23:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Really? Perhaps you could name a few of these recent converts. That shouldn't be too difficult if, as you say, virtually all scientists are beginning to speak up.


Here a few....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't think any of them are recent converts. Especially not the ones who have been dead for a number of years!


How can you convert if you were never a member of your cult?

Your lying 97% BS is getting you nowhere. When only 2% of all scientists believe the political lies and you are willing to call them 97% that pretty much shows your ignorance for what it is.

A number of studies have estimated the proportion of scientists who dispute that humans play a significant role in global warming. None of them show that this is more than a small minority of scientists.



Clearly, it is you who is lying.


The best day in your life you are a moron.

The growth of CO2 also matches: The average life expectancy in years around the world, the world's population growth and the Gross Domestic Product of the USA per person.

Wikipedia has copied the fine upstanding website of John Cook - SkepticalScience who derived that number.

"Here is Cook's summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.""

Of course it was Cook who CHOSE the papers that qualified. What's more no research grants have been government funded that so much as mention the slightest doubt in the very idea of man-made climate change. And since the overwhelming majority of research subsidies come from the government these days this means that only companies that have a vested interest in REAL research are financing anti-AGM research so that some POS like you can tell us that since it was financed by Exxon you can't count it as "real science".

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification"—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook's admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don't say) that there is some man-made global warming and don't quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral."

—Dr. Richard Tol

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . ."

—Dr. Craig Idso

"Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation."

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . ."

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It's based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."

And it's time you jump off a bridge because liars like you deserve nothing more kind than being shown as the SOB you are.

My post didn't even mention Cook's paper, you nasty little shit.


You piece of offal - the graph you showed USED the numbers from wikipedia that used the numbers from Cook's site. But you aren't even bright enough to know that are you?

Are you aware of what happens at CO2 levels below 200 ppm? Photosynthesis ceases. So at levels of 180 ppm the earth was dying. And CS's like you were telling us that all of the Earth's animals that were dying because of man. You POS hadn't even the basic knowledge that any 12 year old should have.

Today photosynthesis is growing and the animal life all over this planet is increasing but to bastards like you that is a bad thing.

All of the officers of the "environmental" organizations have at one time or another said that man is a pox upon this planet.

Hitler killed 10's of million, the Marxists killed 100's of million and the environmentalists want to kill billions. That is YOU and everything you stand for.

The correct level of CO2 on this Earth should be at 2000 to 2500 ppm. But you ain't got the intelligence to know that.

Life formed on this Earth with CO2 levels of about 40%. Animals with levels about 24%. Humans are designed to survive levels of 5,000 ppm or higher.

You should be arrested and charged and put in a jail for the rest of your life.

Didn't you read the text under the chart? The numbers are from completely different studies, your utter loon. Every post you write consists almost completely of lies, random bizarre statements or irrelevant crap. Spot was right: you are completely unhinged. Seek help.


Give us yet more of your stupidity - Cook took his information from those so-called sources that are totally lies. But don't let that stop you.

Since you don't want to accept the corrections of mathematics from a man who originally trained as a large scale architect, perhaps you would prefer the explanation in untrained idiot language from a professor of physics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5bwaf9QXro&t=0s
Edited on 19-04-2017 23:33




Join the debate Christopher Monckton Climate Sensitivity:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity515-09-2018 17:47
Hockey Stick Climate Sensitivity426-04-2017 16:47
Climate Sensitivity608-04-2017 02:42
Christopher Monckton's Papers1126-03-2017 10:54
Christopher Columbus sailed into the unknown and discovered the New World. He should be our idol.712-01-2016 19:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact