70 replies to this topic

[The Silver Thong]

danielost, 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.

[Professor Buzzkill]

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Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source.

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So Mockton in a fraud because his statements are not peer reviewed.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

[Professor Buzzkill]

Not 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"

[Drago]

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.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Drago, 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 IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s 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.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, 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.

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...

[eqgumby]

Professor 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.

[Drago]

Professor 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.

[The Silver Thong]

Professor 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.

[Mattshark]

Professor 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.

[Mattshark]

Professor 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 IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s 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/

[Mattshark]

Professor 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.

[DieChecker]

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.

[ExpandMyMind]

sepulchrave, 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.

[ExpandMyMind]

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.