Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ExpandMyMind

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis

74 posts in this topic

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

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/publications/index.cfm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source.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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Monckton is a liar and a fraud."
:unsure2:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure2:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure2:

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.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

:lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical :unsure2: ), 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical :unsure2: ), 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.