Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#16    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,140 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 27 January 2010 - 08:08 PM

View Postdanielost, on 27 January 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

yes i can but i don't want to go through 48 pages to find it.

You should either find it or retract your statement. If not it should be removed by a mod. Do not make claims you can't back about people.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#17    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 27 January 2010 - 08:08 PM

View PostMattshark, on 27 January 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source. :sleepy:

From the top of that article


Monckton is a liar and a fraud.
And you never prove in science, you evidence.

So Mockton in a fraud because his statements are not peer reviewed. But when the IPCC publish the hockey stick, or that full glacier melt in asia will occur by 2035, and scare government leaders into a emissions trading scheme, that is good science?

I would hazard a guess that these events will not be the last "mistakes" we see from the IPCC.

Here is a telling quote from the IPCC


Quote

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, said this week that the U.N. body was studying how its 2007 report to the United Nations derived information that led to its famous conclusion: that the glaciers will melt by 2035.

Today, the IPCC issued a statement offering regret for the poorly vetted statements. "The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures," the statement says, though it goes short of issuing a full retraction or reprinting the report.

Pachauri told Reuters on Monday that the group was looking into the issue, and planned to "take a position on it in the next two or three days."

Opps, again


#18    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 27 January 2010 - 08:12 PM

View PostNot the 1, on 27 January 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

You should either find it or retract your statement. If not it should be removed by a mod. Do not make claims you can't back about people.

I do find that mattshark attacks the person instead of the ideas (i.e with this Lord Mockton), which is alot easier. I mean the IPCC has lied outright to all of the UN's members, and we would get nowhere if everytime an IPCC report came out i said "they are all liars and frauds, so their science is not worthy of discussing"


#19    Drago

Drago

    Annoying Skeptic Dude

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sphincter of Nowhere

  • Bolted doors and windows barred,
    Guard dogs prowling in the yard,
    Won't protect you in your bed,
    Nothing will, from Pumpkinhead.

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:00 PM

His point here is that Monckton isn't using science.  He's using lies, spun information and misrepresentation of facts to try to discredit the science in the eyes of laymen.  And in this case attacking the source is a reasonable response, since his information is, well, not.  If someone has a history of questionable actions, and then does something questionable, it's perfectly acceptable to point out their history.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.  Cthulhu fhtagn.  Cthulhu fhtagn!

Attention all '2012 is when the world will end' advocates: If, on January 1st 2013, the world has not ended, I will expect a written formal apology from each of you.  That is all.

#20    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:11 PM

View PostDrago, on 27 January 2010 - 09:00 PM, said:

His point here is that Monckton isn't using science.  He's using lies, spun information and misrepresentation of facts to try to discredit the science in the eyes of laymen.  And in this case attacking the source is a reasonable response, since his information is, well, not.  If someone has a history of questionable actions, and then does something questionable, it's perfectly acceptable to point out their history.

The IPCC has a history of questionable actions.
So by your logic we should discount all IPCC released reports because they have been shown to be misleading to the point of diliberately allowing false "peer reviewed facts" which are not peer reviewed or indeed facts. The layperson might even call these lies.

Shall we just start with the science. Mockton claims:
# the IPCCs 2007 climate summary overstated CO2s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
# CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Any countering information? Then we can move all the way down the list of claims and if you are correct it should not be hard to refute these claims.


#21    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:32 PM

View PostMattshark, on 27 January 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source. :sleepy:

From the top of that article


Monckton is a liar and a fraud.
And you never prove in science, you evidence.
Even if you have to create the evidence from scratch...
:w00t:

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#22    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:38 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

So Mockton in a fraud because his statements are not peer reviewed. But when the IPCC publish the hockey stick, or that full glacier melt in asia will occur by 2035, and scare government leaders into a emissions trading scheme, that is good science?

I would hazard a guess that these events will not be the last "mistakes" we see from the IPCC.

Here is a telling quote from the IPCC

Opps, again
Of course all of their "papers" are peer-reviewed...by themselves.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#23    Drago

Drago

    Annoying Skeptic Dude

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sphincter of Nowhere

  • Bolted doors and windows barred,
    Guard dogs prowling in the yard,
    Won't protect you in your bed,
    Nothing will, from Pumpkinhead.

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:48 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

Any countering information? Then we can move all the way down the list of claims and if you are correct it should not be hard to refute these claims.

I can't do that - I'm one of those laymen, when it comes to the specifics of this topic.  But I'd heard about Monckton a long time before this topic, and I don't trust him or his paper any farther than I could throw them.  And I'm lazy so I wouldn't even bother throwing them, I'd just say "I don't trust you or your paper," and leave it at that.

And when did I start defending the IPCC?  I automatically distrust any source of information that uses an acronym to identify itself.  I'm just objecting to being openly lied to in such a way that it's immediately noticeable I'm being lied to.  At least the IPCC goes out of their way to conceal their questionable actions.  Monckton just writes "The IPCC is stupid and ugly and has cooties," and puts it in an op-ed and starts yelling it's peer reviewed fact.

If I have to pick somebody to be lied to by, I'd rather be lied to by the professionals.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.  Cthulhu fhtagn.  Cthulhu fhtagn!

Attention all '2012 is when the world will end' advocates: If, on January 1st 2013, the world has not ended, I will expect a written formal apology from each of you.  That is all.

#24    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,140 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:15 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 08:12 PM, said:

I do find that mattshark attacks the person instead of the ideas (i.e with this Lord Mockton), which is alot easier. I mean the IPCC has lied outright to all of the UN's members, and we would get nowhere if everytime an IPCC report came out i said "they are all liars and frauds, so their science is not worthy of discussing"


Sometimes Matt does attack persons but he's a public figure and Monkton is not a scientist. I think Monkton may have a few good points but what could his motivation for his attacks on people such as calling young people protesting members of the Hitler youth. The claims made against Matt should either be provided or not said.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#25    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 27 January 2010 - 11:25 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

So Mockton in a fraud because his statements are not peer reviewed. But when the IPCC publish the hockey stick, or that full glacier melt in asia will occur by 2035, and scare government leaders into a emissions trading scheme, that is good science?
No he is a fraud because he deliberately lies and misleads.


Quote

I would hazard a guess that these events will not be the last "mistakes" we see from the IPCC.

Here is a telling quote from the IPCC




Opps, again
I doubt they'll be the last mistakes either, rather irrelevant here though.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#26    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 27 January 2010 - 11:33 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

The IPCC has a history of questionable actions.
So by your logic we should discount all IPCC released reports because they have been shown to be misleading to the point of diliberately allowing false "peer reviewed facts" which are not peer reviewed or indeed facts. The layperson might even call these lies.

Shall we just start with the science. Mockton claims:
# the IPCCs 2007 climate summary overstated CO2s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
# CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Any countering information? Then we can move all the way down the list of claims and if you are correct it should not be hard to refute these claims.

Well according to Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS), Monckton lied about IPCC data and he has outright made up temperature trends that simply do not exist
http://www.realclima...e-manipulation/

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#27    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 27 January 2010 - 11:39 PM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 27 January 2010 - 08:12 PM, said:

I do find that mattshark attacks the person instead of the ideas (i.e with this Lord Mockton), which is alot easier. I mean the IPCC has lied outright to all of the UN's members, and we would get nowhere if everytime an IPCC report came out i said "they are all liars and frauds, so their science is not worthy of discussing"
I did put a link specifically pointing out all the errors in there. There is no denying he lied about it being peer-reviewed though and that is suspicious from start.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#28    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,228 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 January 2010 - 01:55 AM

I'm on the disagreeing end from Mattshark all the time, and I feel he does not often fall to personal attacks, usually he has evidence instead.

I do think that the whole Clmate Change thing is overblown, but that is my Opinion. The fact that the paper is not Peer-Reviewed, but put forward as a Scientific paper is pretty telling.

His claims seem like they are extraordinary, which would require Extraordinary evidence, which I don't think we are seeing.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#29    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:22 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 27 January 2010 - 05:50 PM, said:

I'm getting nervous, Mattshark.

One (or two) more threads consisting of the opinions (masquerading as scientific evidence) of some bureaucrat or politician (masquerading as a scientist)
`disproving' anthropogenic global warming and the weight of unsubstantiated hearsay might just convince me!

Just like how evolution was `disproved'.

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplain...howtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.


#30    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:28 AM

i see people are attacking monkton for not being a scientist. eh, the leader of the IPCC, often referred to as the world's top climate scientist, is a railway engineer...

in fact, the IPCC is filled with beurocrats passing themselves off as scientists.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users