70 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

scienceandpublicpolicy.org said:

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Read more...

Quote

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

* 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;
    
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

you can find the paper here http://www.aps.org/p...tions/index.cfm

[Mattshark]

expandmymind, on 27 January 2010 - 04:05 PM, said:

you can find the paper here http://www.aps.org/p...tions/index.cfm

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source.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

Quote

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

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

Edited by Mattshark, 27 January 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Quote

"Monckton is a liar and a fraud."

Does sound rather like how if anyone differed from the official line on other matters in the past, e.g. that the sun went round the earth, they were denounced as a heretic, I can't help thinking.

[danielost]

747400, on 27 January 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Does sound rather like how if anyone differed from the official line on other matters in the past, e.g. that the sun went round the earth, they were denounced as a heretic, I can't help thinking.

remember mattshark said he wouldn't even look at his own info. if it said there was no crises as he preaches.

[Mattshark]

747400, on 27 January 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Does sound rather like how if anyone differed from the official line on other matters in the past, e.g. that the sun went round the earth, they were denounced as a heretic, I can't help thinking.

No, because firstly, he has lied about this being peer-reviewed, it quite clearly states in the article that is not and is well known to have lied about other issues, but hey what do you expect from Thatchers chief advisor (search through my post history for lies by Monckton).
Monckton is not a scientist in anyway.
Monckton is associated with astro-turf oil concern "friends of science"
But feel free to read over the list of errors.
http://www.altenergy...g/Monckton.html

Edited by Mattshark, 27 January 2010 - 05:07 PM.

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 27 January 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

remember mattshark said he wouldn't even look at his own info. if it said there was no crises as he preaches.

Either show where or retract that right now.

[sepulchrave]

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'.

[Lottie]

danielost, on 27 January 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

remember mattshark said he wouldn't even look at his own info. if it said there was no crises as he preaches.

Before this gets out of hand... Can you back up this statement? If not please refrain in future from writing such.

[Emma_Acid]

It isn't peer-reviewed, and as APS states, their articles are "a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion."

[Mattshark]

Lottie, on 27 January 2010 - 06:17 PM, said:

Before this gets out of hand... Can you back up this statement? If not please refrain in future from writing such.

Lottie this is about the 5th time he has done such things.

[Mattshark]

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'.

That is the problem with any debate, such underhand tactics are used by some individuals to produce their argument rather than debating any of the real evidence .
Copying tactics from the creationist groups is not a good methodology to use.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical   ), is, if we can take it that it's been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is changing in the long term, can the experts be really sure (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's happening more quickly and more dramatically than it's ever done before, and that it isn't in fact a natural fluctuation over time?; how do the experts explain the climate fluctuations in the past, such as how the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland, and the mini Ice ages back in medieval times, when they skated on the Thames and things?; for how long has it been possible to gather data sufficiently reliable to be able to say what they do with any accuracy? Haven't records only been kept in anything approaching scientfiic detail since about the mid 19th century, and it's only been possible to measure the Arctic ice caps with any detail since the advent of satellites, hasn't it?  And if it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this is a wholly exceptional phenomenon, has it been proved (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's mankind's activities on planet earth that's causing it?

[danielost]

Lottie, on 27 January 2010 - 06:17 PM, said:

Before this gets out of hand... Can you back up this statement? If not please refrain in future from writing such.

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

[danielost]

747400, on 27 January 2010 - 06:39 PM, said:

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical   ), is, if we can take it that it's been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is changing in the long term, can the experts be really sure (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's happening more quickly and more dramatically than it's ever done before, and that it isn't in fact a natural fluctuation over time?; how do the experts explain the climate fluctuations in the past, such as how the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland, and the mini Ice ages back in medieval times, when they skated on the Thames and things?; for how long has it been possible to gather data sufficiently reliable to be able to say what they do with any accuracy? Haven't records only been kept in anything approaching scientfiic detail since about the mid 19th century, and it's only been possible to measure the Arctic ice caps with any detail since the advent of satellites, hasn't it?  And if it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this is a wholly exceptional phenomenon, has it been proved (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's mankind's activities on planet earth that's causing it?

not according to the chart he keeps posting.  we are on a normally accouring peak, and according to the normal we should start cooling of in oh 10,000 years.

[Drago]

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.

Translation: "Probably not, since I have a history of only seeing what I want to see in Mattshark's posts, their actual content notwithstanding."