Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/22/p28023

​

 

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary".
Dr. Stephan Harrison criticises Moncktons' articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples".
The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."

Moncktons selection of data to fit his conclusions seems like sound logic when we see what this imbecile suggests for the control of HIV; "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently" - This doesn't invalidate his views on climate change, But it does show what kind of a cretin the man is.

There are only two claims that need to be refuted to disprove human contributed climate change;
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. We release Co2 by burning fossil fuels.

If at least one of those two statements can not be refuted then the claim that human activities are contributing to climate change stand as true.

 

These people are much alike the ID cretinists. As soon as they get one person with a university degree getting an article published on a scientific journal nothing else matters.

 

It is funny that zealots will attack via Ad Homs, and create strawmen, but they won't individually consider each point.

The reality is, climate sensitivity is the measure of man's impact on the weather, and the IPCC has lied through it's teeth to scaremonger and push controversial legislative agendas.

The knuckle-dragging troglodytes can continue to grunt and groan about global warming, however the cat is out of the bag. Funny how the debunker is attacked, for clearly pointing out and identifying the flaws in the UN methodolgy. Oh noes, we can't hold the UN accountable for lying!

He must be a cretin!

The great thing about peer reviewed journals, is that unlike the UN, Monckton's analysis will receive public disclosure and criticism. His reputation is on the line, unlike the IPCC which can operate behind the guise of UN authority and (perceived) neutrality.

Some people want to believe so badly that man is evil, that he is the scourge of the planet, and other socialist agendas (50% of stOx's threads) that they refuse to sit down and honestly evaluate other viewpoints. It's enviro-fanaticism, and the fanatics don't even realize they are pawns in someone else's game.

 

His analysis has received public disclosure and criticism, It was found that he carefully selected data to fit his conclusion, It was pseudo-scientific gibberish, slight of hand and full of errors. Don't start stamping your feet just because the man you planned on rallying behind has been exposed as a deceitful, nonscientific imbecile. Go look for someone else who agrees with your preconceived conclusions to latch on to.

I repeat;
There are only two claims that need to be refuted to disprove human contributed climate change;
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. We release Co2 by burning fossil fuels.

If at least one of those two statements can not be refuted then the claim that human activities are contributing to climate change stand as true.

You have done exactly what monckton had done guerilla. You formed a conclusion, then went looking for the evidence to support it. Unfortunately for you the only evidence you could find was pseudo-scientific gibberish from someone else who formed his conclusion then set about finding the evidence to support it. it's called intellectual dishonesty.

 

More ad homs and strawmen.

Let me ask you something stOx, which of these is untrue?

1. The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
2. CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
3. Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
4. The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
5. The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
6. “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
7. Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
8. The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
9. It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
10. Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
11. In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

You don't have to post the explanations, just the #s which you know are incorrect.

 

I don't know the specifics of his carefully selected data, Data which was selected on the grounds that it supports the conclusion he wanted to draw, But i'll investigate and post my conclusions later on tonight. For now i will say 6 is misleading and 9 is flat out absurd. But then, Even if they were all true it doesn't negate the charge that he cherry picked his data. If data is cherry picked then it is going to be cherry picked specifically because it supports the conclusion he wanted to draw, that's the point of cherry picking.

Take this for example "the earth has been cooling for seven years". Why use a time frame of seven years if not only for the purpose of finding a time frame in which temperature had dropped? Why not 20 years? 80 years? I'll tell you why, it's because the space of seven years is the only time frame he could find where the temperature dropped, And because he is trying to find evidence against climate change he used that piece of data as his evidence.

He isn't using science to form conclusions, He is using intellectual dishonesty to find and present evidence to support his conclusions.


perhaps while i'm looking into his claims more closely you could tell me which of the following statements is untrue.
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Human activities increase the Co2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

 

I appreciate the first part of your response, but the remainder is character assassination, not fact or discourse aimed at gaining insight.

A lot of global warming debunkers (like 9/11 truthers) have been subject to personal attacks for questioning what is official dogma now.

However, hard science and real analytical criticism are starting to shake the foundations of what everyone had universally accepted about climate change, and has been hammered into the general populace through all channels of propaganda.

As always, I am interested in the truth. Sure I have my biases, but when confronted with the truth, I will have no choice but to accept it. So far there is very little truth on the climate change topic.

Of the links you posted, they were relevant to 2006, not the current article, which attacks the IPCC conclusions of 2007. Why the false reports and tainted science of the IPCC is not of concern to people who are concerned about climate change, indicates to me that again, it's dogma and not truth that drives the discussion.

Even reading the blog criticisms, they seem to focus more on name calling than actual debunking, ironically a lot of hard math and science can be found further down in the later comments of this discussions.

I don't know what our climate sensitivity is. I don't know if we're creating an ice age or desert age. I don't think anyone really knows for sure. But when one side shouts down the other, and won't tolerate any discourse contrary to dogma, that's when I smell a rat.

You should listen to the Dr. Floy Lilley interview I posted. She's actually attended all of these climate conferences and has opinion based on first hand experience, and expertise in the field. *Warning*, she will not tell a story you are predisposed to agree with or believe.

 

If global warming activists are going to stop pollution I really have no problem with what they do at all.

Think of how much damage, known and unknown, its done to the planet and the living things on this planet already.

 

How and at what cost?

It's classic what is seen and what is unseen. Like a drug ad that spends 28 seconds telling you how great and easy it is to get the latest pharma, but then the negative side effects and known issues are read in under 2 seconds by a speed speaker.

If we're ever going to progress morally, intellectually and philosophically, we will have to stop reacting to everything in such a knee jerk fashion, and start weighing costs, benefits and demanding accountability from research.

 

What cost? Since when was there a cost associated with stopping pollution? Using and develping green technology --- this actually costs something? Continuing our dependence on oil is what's going to cost us.

I do know pollution causes birth defects and things like cancer. What else?

IMHO it's really important to take care of the planet we live on, we can trash it now and not be affected but it will affect our children.

This isn't knee jerk.

Just common sense.

 

ww, only the "how and at what cost" was addressed specifically to you. I am by no means saying you were being knee-jerk, just within the discussion of this thread, the universal acceptance that man is driving climate change, or that man made pollution is having effect X which will be catastrophic by time X starts to get to me.

There is a cost to environmentalism. Don't doubt it. The elite environmentalists would like to tax like there is no tomorrow. It's basically another revenue stream for them, if they were in the private sphere, it would be like inventing a charity "Donate to save the African Rain Forest Mountain River Purple Monkey Fish! OMGZ, it's almost extinct!"

Tyrants have always asked us to defer our liberty and prosperity now for the future, bleak futures they invent, whether it is witches and devils, nuclear holocaust, the red tide of communism, Islamofascism, Global Terrorism, or Climate Change. There is always a boogeyman and each time we succumb to fear over reason, we descend into a dark age, an age of self-destructive thinking.

Anyway, environmentalism has it's costs. The question is, if we're trying to save the future, how do we determine where the costs begin and end? Normally, you can price things by supply and demand, but there really is no way to tell what our current impact is, let alone how much it needs to be cut to avoid disaster Z. Not that this will stop the UN or hyper-active government activists from setting random rates like 15%, 35%, 4% etc. They are throwing darts at a chart, blindfolded, and we're expected to pay where the point pierces paper.

If you don't, it's off to a federal rape room for you!

 

Thought I would add, what if the studies turn up that man, conclusively, without a doubt is causing destructive climate change and killing the planet.

There is no amount we can cut back, without all returning to the jungle, chopping up our asphalt, tearing down our skyscrapers and closing our hospitals, schools, military bases, TV stations etc.

Everybody ready for that level of sacrifice? Ready to give up microwave ovens, the internet and being able to travel easily more than 25 miles?

Or here is another perspective for you, what if we need to eliminate 1 billion people in the next 5 years. Should we start cranking up the gas chambers?

That's why it is important to know what the costs are. We might find (a genuine) cure is worse than the disease.

 

First off I would like to say thank you to guerilla for posting this. I am not a believer of global warming as it is presented. I was actually in a debate last night with friends about the issue. Either way global warming is just an attempt for the government to get more control over us. Tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to do, etc.

 

You don't need to go back to the middle ages to reduce pollution. We could use air compressed powered cars instead of internal combustion engines for reducing city pollution. We could replace old coal powerplants (which have to be replaced after a certain numbers of years anyway) with cleaner ways of producing electricity. Or we could design products so they're more easily recicled.

Oh, and you didn't touch stox's main argument at all:

1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Human activities increase the Co2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

How can all the stuff we put in the atmosphere have no effect whatsoever?

 

... and to tax us even more.

 

Gordon Brown over in England is doing a hell of a job with that one. I dont know how I left that out.

 

I support all efforts to get us out of the "Oil Age", but it is going to take time. Germany is the greenest country in the world and they barely produce 10% of their electricity from wind and solar sources. Their goal is to hit 20% by 2020.

There are so many ways that we use oil to manufacture everything from furniture to electronics that reducing our fuel usage is just a start.

We are going to need to create more nuclear power plants at some point, but the environmentalists have the politicians convinced that it is not safe. Using air compressed power cars is a great idea, but we will need more electricity to run the compressors.

In the last couple of days, Intel announced that it has discovered a way to transmit electricity, but only for short distances. If this discovery can be developed fully, it would be feasible to drive electric cars that require no battery!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/21/intel-demos-a-wireless-power-broadcasting-system-villagers-terr/

 

All great ideas that I celebrate, particularly if they are market driven (meaning, they are done privately and thus are the most cost effective means, instead of government throwaways of tax money on dead projects that bring political gain).

However, neither you or I know that it will be enough. We might have to go back to the middle ages. Maybe even further back. Our population is enormous now, and the amount of economic activity 6+ billion people create definitely is going to produce a lot of CO2, even if it's just from farting.

I didn't touch stOx's argument because it is a strawman. I wasn't going to indulge him. First, I'm not an expert on CO2, so I can't say without a doubt that it is a greenhouse gas. I will admit I believe we produce it by burning fossil fuels.

However, no one knows exactly what the impact is, hence this thread, the issue is climate sensitivity. Yes we know man is terra-forming the planet. But we don't know how much of that is due to us, and how much of it is due to natural cycles. And overwhelming scientific evidence is now pointing to the fact that the planet is a lot less sensitive to the interventions of man, than the boohoohoo environmental fanaticism would have us believe.

People get worked up that the Bush Administration faked the evidence to invade Iraq. That a lot of the evidence was tweaked, fudged and contrived.

Well, IPCC has just been exposed as faking evidence about climate change, and there is no outrage. That bothers me. Is it that people want to be lied to? Y'all like having boogeymen to be scared of? Buncha self-haters, want to tax yourselves to death?

Oh yeah, this isn't some mistake the IPCC made. It has deliberately misstated information, or altered the summaries. We're not going to solve any problems, certainly not real and imminent ones, when we're following liars around like the Pied Piper and believing facts made up to suit political agendas.

 

where did you get the idea that Germany is the greenest country in the world from?

well, usually commons have to be regulated, and I think air quality is no different.

so, do you support us going back to the middle ages or what? I really can't understand what's up with this argument.

quote from wiki:

I really don't see how his argument could fit within this definition.

does that make his argument invalid?

ok, so we don't know for sure exactly what our impact on the climate is. So when would you say it would be a right time to start doing something about this issue?