Christopher Monckton's Papers

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Christopher Monckton's Papers

Christopher Monckton's Papers25-03-2017 13:11
student33 ☆☆☆☆☆ (15)	I wonder if anyone here might be able to help me find Christopher Monckton's Climate Change denial scientific papers, in which he points out inconsistencies with the method the IPCC use to calculate temperature projections? Thanks.
25-03-2017 14:07
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	student33 wrote: I wonder if anyone here might be able to help me find Christopher Monckton's Climate Change denial scientific papers, in which he points out inconsistencies with the method the IPCC use to calculate temperature projections? Thanks. Christopher Monckton has not written any scientific papers, he is not a scientist he is a journalist with a padded CV. 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.
25-03-2017 14:12
student33 ☆☆☆☆☆ (15)	Hi there, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I've just come across a paper published by Monckton. "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". I was hoping someone could tell me the name of his more recent paper, which he apparently published in December 2016.
25-03-2017 14:22
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	student33 wrote: Hi there, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I've just come across a paper published by Monckton. "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". I was hoping someone could tell me the name of his more recent paper, which he apparently published in December 2016. A paper sneaked into a Chinese Journal that had just started a paper with a multitude of errors, ok he helped write a paper. In my opinion it will not tell you anything about the real world and what we can expect to happen in the future. 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.
25-03-2017 17:45
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	I think he would disagree with the denier bit. Try skeptic. Edited on 25-03-2017 17:45

25-03-2017 17:51
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	student33 wrote: Monckton. "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". You can find their paper, written with old AGW denier liar whiner, Willie Soon. Of course, old models (from the pre-1990's) run hot. They did not know that future solar TSI would stay languid for many decades, plus even reduce in average solar output for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period with solar TSI setting a 100 year record low). If your research includes only Monckton & Willie Soon (or even a small part of their fiction), you also endorse error & are being led by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop. Edited on 25-03-2017 17:53
25-03-2017 18:37
student33 ☆☆☆☆☆ (15)	spot wrote: student33 wrote: Hi there, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I've just come across a paper published by Monckton. "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". I was hoping someone could tell me the name of his more recent paper, which he apparently published in December 2016. A paper sneaked into a Chinese Journal that had just started a paper with a multitude of errors, ok he helped write a paper. In my opinion it will not tell you anything about the real world and what we can expect to happen in the future. Hi there, Interesting! Would you by any chance know the exact location of this paper? Is there a link to it? What is the website hosting this Chinese Journal? Would you care to explain what exactly those mistakes are - or failing that, provide me with a link explaining them? Thanks in advance!
25-03-2017 18:40
student33 ☆☆☆☆☆ (15)	litesong wrote: student33 wrote: Monckton. "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". You can find their paper, written with old AGW denier liar whiner, Willie Soon. Of course, old models (from the pre-1990's) run hot. They did not know that future solar TSI would stay languid for many decades, plus even reduce in average solar output for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period with solar TSI setting a 100 year record low). If your research includes only Monckton & Willie Soon (or even a small part of their fiction), you also endorse error & are being led by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop. Interesting! Would you be able to direct me towards some of the arguments against AGW (as propagated by climate sceptics such as Monckton)? I am interested to know more about these older models and why they are no longer a valid method or predicting future temperature. What are their weaknesses/criticisms?
25-03-2017 19:02
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	student 33 thumbed: litesong wrote: If your research includes only Monckton & Willie Soon (or even a small part of their fiction), you also endorse error & are being led by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop. Would you be able to direct me towards some of the arguments against AGW (as propagated by climate sceptics such as Monckton)? Ah.... student 33 wants to slime up with AGW denier liar whiner propaganda PR poop. Lost case already. Edited on 25-03-2017 19:04
25-03-2017 19:33
student33 ☆☆☆☆☆ (15)	litesong wrote: student 33 thumbed: litesong wrote: If your research includes only Monckton & Willie Soon (or even a small part of their fiction), you also endorse error & are being led by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop. Would you be able to direct me towards some of the arguments against AGW (as propagated by climate sceptics such as Monckton)? Ah.... student 33 wants to slime up with AGW denier liar whiner propaganda PR poop. Lost case already. Not really. I'm currently writing a student essay on the topic, and need to consider both points of view for my argument to be balanced.
26-03-2017 04:59
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	student33 thumbed: litesong wrote: student 33 wants to slime up with AGW denier liar whiner propaganda PR poop. Lost case already. Not really. I'm currently writing a student essay.... As stated, student 33 wants to eat up AGW denier liar whiner propaganda PR poop. Edited on 26-03-2017 05:09
26-03-2017 12:54
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	student33 wrote: litesong wrote: student 33 thumbed: litesong wrote: If your research includes only Monckton & Willie Soon (or even a small part of their fiction), you also endorse error & are being led by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop. Would you be able to direct me towards some of the arguments against AGW (as propagated by climate sceptics such as Monckton)? Ah.... student 33 wants to slime up with AGW denier liar whiner propaganda PR poop. Lost case already. Not really. I'm currently writing a student essay on the topic, and need to consider both points of view for my argument to be balanced. What is the title of your essay? https://wattsupwiththat.com/ This blog site is probably a good place to ask science specific questions. This forum is dominated by prats who cannot string together a reasoned argument. A more interesting take on the subject might be the comparison between the cost of the expected worst case effectes of global warming, which are nothing much in my opionion, and the cost of what we are doing now. Today 40% of US grain is diverted away from feeding people to making biofuel. This, along with all the other such schemes around the world, has resulted in a 30% to 70% increase in basic food costs. The poorest 3 billion people's life expectancy is greatly reduced by this. The development of the economy and social situation of the world's poorest is also vastly impacted. My estimate is at least 20 million per year dying due to this. That makes it the second ever most killings done by any one political faction only less than the Mongol invaisions. As you have encountered, the green side of the debate is offended and aqfronted by youe open mind and wish to see both sides of the argument. The reality is that the envirmonentalists are actually communist types who just hate humans and want to destroy this society because they fail in it and don't wish to blame them selves for their own failures. Basic traitor types. Litefool being the most obvious. Good luck on your self education.

Join the debate Christopher Monckton's Papers:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)	136	21-06-2023 21:26
The Kent Papers: Author	14	07-02-2023 05:35
The Kent Papers: NEW THERMODYNAMICS: HOW MANKIND'S USE OF ENERGY INFLUENCES CLIMATE CHANGE	11	02-02-2023 22:07
The Kent Papers: New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions	21	01-02-2023 13:42
The Kent Papers: Entropy - An Ill-Conceived Mathematical Contrivance?	0	01-02-2023 02:41