How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
,
601

Let’s take action against the nonaction of the nonwarming planet! Let’s demand that the planet ACT URGENTLY now to give us a reason to ACT URGENTLY!!!

[quote]Obama Fights to Save Planet That Hasn’t Warmed in Nearly 19 Years
By Deroy Murdock — December 1, 2015
Until world leaders can explain their way past two specific graphs, their gathering in Paris this week to combat so-called global warming might as well launch a War on Leprechauns.

It would be bad enough if President Obama and some 150 other heads of state were pursuing destructive solutions to a legitimate problem. Far worse, they are poised to adopt policies that will slow economic growth, spread poverty, and stymie human progress, all in slavish service to an utterly bogus “problem” of their own imagination. They are like madmen frantically swatting brooms at “bats” that flap their brittle wings solely inside these politicians’ febrile skulls.

Those who push this agenda once hollered about pending doom, thanks to “global warming.” A few years ago, they quietly retired that rhetoric and, instead, began shouting about “climate change.”

Why the jumped-up new slogan? “Global warming” stopped happening, and complaining about it increasingly made them look deranged.

As this graph clearly indicates, scientific observations from weather satellites have reported zero warming in global mean temperatures since February 1997, when readings from recent decades peaked. Simply put, despite the warmists’ high-decibel bluster, there has been no global warming for 18 years and nine months.

This graph, and the one below, are courtesy of Great Britain’s Lord Monckton of Brenchley and posted by Climate Depot, a website of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. CFACT and Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored my November 19 speech to the New York University College Republicans on this very topic.

Lord Monckton’s data come from satellites that orbit Earth, far above the automobile tailpipes, air-conditioning exhaust ducts, and even barbecue pits that distort readings from ground-based thermometers adjacent to these heat sources.

RELATED: The Great Climate Lie

Despite this incontrovertible proof that their cause is more bankrupt than a telegraph factory, Obama and his ilk obsessively cling to their fantasies of Civilization oscillating between sun-drenched evaporation and drowning amid rapidly rising tides from molten polar ice caps.

Scary picture, but it isn’t happening.

In a maddening act of communications malpractice, many conservatives inexplicably adopted the self-confirming phrase “climate change.” (When it’s roasting, it’s climate change. When it’s freezing, it’s climate change.) This has stranded the Right on the Left’s playing field. Very, very dumb. The Right immediately should drop the phrase “climate change.” Instead, conservatives should reinvigorate the words “global warming” and force the Left to defend that verbiage, even as it devolves daily into a punchline.

RELATED: The West’s Self-Destructive Global Warming Penance

“But what about the models?” the warmists insist.

As Jim Guirard of the TrueSpeak Institute observes, the global warmists are the true deniers of science. They ignore actual data from satellites and embrace the alchemy of computer models supervised by the United Nations’s International Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s PCs spew predictions of a planet asphyxiated beneath a duvet of “carbon pollution” — Obama’s mendacious new epithet for carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas that humans exhale and plants inhale, before the latter produces life-sustaining oxygen.

RELATED: The Calcification of Climate Science

If these vaunted models truly can foreshadow the supposedly apocalyptic conditions on Earth in, say, 2050 or 2100, surely they have traced correctly this planet’s temperatures from their inception until today.

Not even close.

Letting go of a steering wheel while driving on a flat road is no big deal — at first. But a slight drift to the left eventually results in a head-on collision into oncoming traffic.

The IPCC’s blessed models similarly have slammed into reality.

As this graph confirms, between January 1990 and September 2015, these models have predicted 0.45° Celsius (0.81° degrees Fahrenheit) more warming than satellites actually have detected. If these sacred computer models blew it this badly over the last 25 years, why should anyone believe any of their prophecies about the next 35 to 85 years?

These facts refute the utter mythology that fuels this week’s festivities in Paris. Citizens worldwide should demand that their leaders stop chasing unicorns around the Eiffel Tower, fly home, and address the genuine problems facing their nations.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.[/quote]

602

Do you actually believe that Fred? Everyone else in the scientific community is wrong, but Lord Monckton is correct, because he has a proven track record of being right. wait no, thats not right, how about because of his genius in getting a degree in Journalism. No, hmmm what could it be? Oh because he says what you want to hear. :thumbsup:

603

Lord Monckton is using satellite data that is there for everyone to see. The climate change alarmists who receive billions, tens of billions, more? in research and other support are not the disinterested bystanders that you paint them to be. Note that the satellite data is never rejiggered to achieve the “right” results but that the computer models do this regularly. The best that Vay could do is to show previous warming and then contrast this with the last 19 years as a mere plateau in the ever-increasing temperatures but he was not able to prove warming over the past 19 years. Can you?

604

Well, actually I can. The last few years have pretty much killed the argument “there has been no warming for x years”, this one will the warmest on record, to everyone except Monckton and his decaying satellite data which everyone gave up on years ago in favor of something a little more modern and accurate. Don’t want you to wait around with baited breath however, I got a few things to do today, lets see if we can’t put something more robust than Monckton up for you a little later.

605

So if it is so “modern and accurate,” why does it continually require tweaking, adjustment and then a few years later (if that) is still unable to accurately predict the climate. I get that you are fervently religious about this subject. I find that cute.

606

[quote=“fred smith”]
So if it is so “modern and accurate,” why does it continually require tweaking, adjustment and then a few years later (if that) is still unable to accurately predict the climate. I get that you are fervently religious about this subject. I find that cute.[/quote]

Oh yeah, I am totally religious, searching out the same point that has been refuted a hundred times before. You got my number.

Your point is a right wing gotcha, there is some interest in the gotcha, but not enough to really to satisfy me there is any interest from your side to discuss facts, and let the facts fall wherever they may.

A word to the wise, you can only play the fool and others so much. Look at Donald Trump, why has he garnered so much support, why are you a republican supporting Hillary Clinton. Shes establishment, in favor of wall street, K street, TPP and all the business interests. Lovely, I’m sure. There’s no difference between Republican establishment and Democrat establishment, the voters don’t get to choose anything, the establishment only gets to count which of their candidates won.

607

So, you have had what 35 years? of alarmism? regarding global warming/climate change? and what have you accomplished? and what has happened to indicate that the world is in serious climactic crisis?

Emotionalism? Why? Isn’t that the very vein that all of you alarmists are tapping into? Mexicans this! Muslims that! polar bears this! ice-free Arctic that! Now, we are looking at an ice-free Arctic in what? 35 more years? Not 2013! Not 2016! and I guess not 2019 either!

Experience, capabilities, clear strategies, hard word, dedication, determination, action, ambition, organization.

Yup! And so am I. When 50% of Americans are depending on Wall Street to deliver on their pensions and 401K retirement plans, I would say Wall Street and Main Street are one and the same. Of course, I support free trade and that means TPP and the TransAtlantic Trade Agreement as well! Look at what Open Skies did for air travel. Get the government and regulation out and everyone benefits. Or are you saying you would prefer to pay the old prices and get the old service for air travel?

But yes!

Seems to me that the US and its economy is not the most serious crisis facing the planet… apparently, though, climate change is?

Now, you were about to prove the rising temperatures that disprove the satellite data provided above… no doubt, using climate models… when can we see all of that proof? I thought that you were too busy to respond but here, again, you are… with more of the same… perhaps, a retreat is in order? something with a drum circle and a bonfire where you can channel your inner Soaring Eagle? Bear that Barks? Dog that Chases?

608

Oh dear. And, I had had such high hopes… for change that I could believe in. I guess the change will be more policy-driven rather than climactic… how anti-climactic hahahahaahah

[quote]When world leaders met in Paris to launch the latest UN climate conference, much of the talk behind closed doors did not focus on global warming. Instead, the Paris conference has been overshadowed by more pressing and less contentious security concerns: the war in Syria, Europe’s refugee crisis and the growing threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the Paris massacre. The Copenhagen summit six years ago was a massive event; this year’s climate conference barely merits a mention of the front pages.

The Paris meeting is not even attempting to achieve what the 2009 Copenhagen summit failed to do: reach a legally binding treaty on cutting CO2 emissions. Instead, the aim is to replace the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol (which runs out in 2020) with voluntary pledges tailored to the national considerations of individual countries.

In short, the Paris climate deal will mean abandoning the notion of making decarbonisation legally binding — at least for the time being. Even so, governments from around the world are keen to sign an agreement that will allow political leaders to declare a victory, and to move on. At the same time, officials readily accept that painful decisions will be kicked into the long grass. Thus, the Paris accord is likely to be a ‘wait and see’ arrangement which, for the next decade at least, suspends any attempt of reaching a binding decarbonisation treaty. Such an outcome will almost certainly trigger a fundamental reassessment of Europe’s go-it-alone-no-matter-what-the-costs decarbonisation policies.

Why has it proven impossible for such summits to make the kind of progress that was, until recently, billed as a matter of saving the world? Firstly, policies that commit western governments to unilateral decarbonisation have turned out to be more costly and politically toxic than conventional wisdom proclaimed. Rather than running out of fossil fuels — and thereby making renewable energy more competitive — the US shale revolution and the prospect of its global proliferation has triggered a glut of cheap oil and gas. Fuel prices have fallen and look set to remain low for the foreseeable future. As a result, the bridge to a world powered by renewable energy has become longer rather than shorter.

Also, poor countries remain categorically opposed to signing any agreement that would impede economic growth by limiting the use of cheap fossil fuels. Rather than decarbonising, most Asian and African countries are banking on cheap coal. In Asia, more than 500 coal-fired power plants have been built in the first nine months of this year alone, while an estimated 1,000 new coal plants are set to power up in coming years.

To counterbalance western pressure, developing countries are demanding sizable funding for adaptation and the transition to renewable energy. Once, President Obama promised developing nations an annual climate fund of $100 billion, by 2020, in return for their signatures on a global climate deal. That was six years ago; most developing nations have since realised that his pledge will never materialise. Neither the US Senate nor debt-addled European governments are willing to commit to such an astronomical annual wealth transfer.

Global surface temperatures have failed to adhere to the predictions of climate modellers. Rather than rapid warming, as the IPCC has predicted, the temperature rise has been barely discernible, standing nearly still for most of the last 20 years. The global warming slowdown has enabled a number of governments to downgrade the climate agenda in favour of energy security (or affordable energy) and to take a more gradual approach. Most world leaders are aware of the controversy surrounding the warming hiatus which has given them valuable time to keep prevaricating.

The warming pause has significantly weakened public concern — giving ministers the opportunity to delay, water down or even get rid of what David Cameron famously called ‘green crap’. Cameron’s Conservative government has certainly set a new tone in recent months. It has announced that energy security and affordability of energy will henceforth be prioritised over the climate agenda. Britain’s new climate secretary, Amber Rudd, has said she ‘will travel in step with what is happening in the rest of the world’ so that energy bills remain affordable for households, business remains competitive, and the economy remains secure.

For Europe and the UK, whose heavy industries are struggling to remain competitive under the weight of unilateral climate taxes and CO2 obligations, a voluntary Paris deal would deliver a real chance to change course. The EU’s own Paris offer, pledging to cut CO2 by 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030, is conditional on the UN agreement being legally binding for all major emitters. But if Europe’s key demand for a level playing field is not met, poor EU member states from Eastern and Central Europe will almost certainly refuse to make the EU’s own pledges legally binding. After Paris, the battle for a return to realistic climate policy will begin in earnest.[/quote]

new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/an- … s-upon-us/

609

[quote=“fred smith”]
So, you have had what 35 years? of alarmism? regarding global warming/climate change? and what have you accomplished? and what has happened to indicate that the world is in serious climactic crisis? [/quote]

Perhaps if nothing else a raised awareness of deforestation.

[quote=“fred smith”]

Emotionalism? Why? Isn’t that the very vein that all of you alarmists are tapping into? Mexicans this! Muslims that! polar bears this! ice-free Arctic that! Now, we are looking at an ice-free Arctic in what? 35 more years? Not 2013! Not 2016! and I guess not 2019 either![/quote]

You’re right about the emotionalism, in fact in many ways I would like to support Trump but he’s such a caricature and product of Fox news that many of his views are a disgrace. People support him because they are sick of the establishment, lies and false promises, the voting electorate have become the enemy of the establishment, watch and see the GOPe will throw their support behind Hillary instead of Trump.

[quote=“fred smith”]

Experience, capabilities, clear strategies, hard word, dedication, determination, action, ambition, organization.[/quote]

Shes smart too, I think you may have left out a few other apt descriptions of her as well.

[quote=“fred smith”]

Yup! And so am I. When 50% of Americans are depending on Wall Street to deliver on their pensions and 401K retirement plans, I would say Wall Street and Main Street are one and the same. Of course, I support free trade and that means TPP and the TransAtlantic Trade Agreement as well! Look at what Open Skies did for air travel. Get the government and regulation out and everyone benefits. Or are you saying you would prefer to pay the old prices and get the old service for air travel? [/quote]

Well I knew that, the question was more rhetorical than anything else. We will agree to disagree on the benefits of the TPP agreement, great for business, not so great for the general population and the unwashed masses.

[quote=“fred smith”]
Now, you were about to prove the rising temperatures that disprove the satellite data provided above… no doubt, using climate models… when can we see all of that proof? I thought that you were too busy to respond but here, again, you are… with more of the same… perhaps, a retreat is in order? something with a drum circle and a bonfire where you can channel your inner Soaring Eagle? Bear that Barks? Dog that Chases?[/quote]

A retreat? I’m afraid you misunderstand, the facts over the last 18 years are easily discerned, and most people already know whats going on anyway, I am pondering whether it’s worth my time to counter your claims from Lord Monckton. After all I only have everyone to quote from, NASA, GISP, IPCC, NOAA clearly you have me at the disadvantage because you got expert analysis from Christopher Monckton.

610

And yet… and yet… every time those of you “who care about the masses” implement your policies, the masses suffer most, while the uncaring capitalists take action that provides initiatives that lead the masses out of poverty… Shall we review the history of communism, socialism, nationalization of industry, regulation to protect industry, etc? Do we really want to go down that road?

Well, there is that satellite data that anyone who wants to can prove wrong. You are the one who was going to disprove this but you talk and talk and talk about what “everyone knows” but you don’t really show us anything, do you? And when you get around to it, you will show us the same recalibrated, readjusted, reconfigured, rejiggered data from computer models that has made the climate change alarmist movement the laughing stock of … well, just about everyone… I think that it is funny. Don’t you? Not even a little? By the way, I am starting an NGO to help save polar bears from drastic climate change. Would you like to donate? It will also help fund my micro gin processing facility that donates 0.0000000000000001 cent for every dollar you spend. See. I CARE. I really really REALLY do.

611

You may as well be quoting material from Daffy Duck, if thats where you get your information from and think it constitutes something resembling intelligence, theres not much to talk about.

For anyone interested in Lord Monckton they can read a fun fact sheet on him, it’s just a long list of epic failure, kookiness, making up data, miasprepesentation, lies and at times truly absurd. I’m amazed the scientific community respond as often as they do, it’s kind of like they are repulsed and fascinated at this bizarre creature.

bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-mo … rap-sheet/
The one where he attempts to write a scientific paper and claims it was peer reviewed (it wasn’t, and it says so at the top of the article) then a real scientist tears it apart and finds 125 errors in it is a good one. Regarding global mean temperatures, he’s been called out for the tripe he puts out before (obviously doesn’t stop him from carrying right on).

Monckton’s deliberate manipulation
Monckton makes it up

This one put a smile on my face.

:roflmao: Shall we talk more about this brilliant scientist of yours, the great Lord Moncton. He is entertaining I give you that, although a little sad anyone would take him seriously.

612

No, let’s talk about the satellite data. Please do share with us where the satellite data is inaccurate and let us know how those computer models are doing today, this hour, this minute, this second, before they are rejiggered again. You said you had proof but now you have descended into ad hominem attacks… so… what are we to assume? I think that you know the answer to that.

613

I’m sure you don’t want to dwell on Christopher Monckton too long :slight_smile:

Look, climate science is tough, it’s incredibly complicated. Even the basic premise that a doubling of C02 causes a degree of warming, the proof of which is out of nearly everyones league. I could hand a recipe for chicken chow mien written in Chinese to almost anyone in the west and claim it is actually anything I want and no one will know the difference. Of course if I hand it to someone who reads Chinese they will laugh their heads off and say its a recipe for chicken chow mien. Monckton is no different, when he tries to write about the climate people who know what they are talking about laugh right in his face.

Normally I might side with you about ad hominien attacks, but since this is someone who claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. One might think we should be a little skeptical of Moncktons claims? Or no? You just like taking anything that supports your belief at face value without considering the source or the weight of opposing opinion?

614

So still nothing to dispute those satellite records? Gotcha!

More on how people like you “care.”

[quote]The next generation is watching, Barack Obama told the Paris climate conference this week: ‘Our grandchildren, when they look back and see what we did in Paris, they can take pride in what we did.’ And that, surely, is the trouble with the entire climate-change agenda: putting the interests of rich people’s grandchildren ahead of those of poor people today.

Unfair? Not really, when you look at the policies enacted in the name of mitigating climate change.
We’ve diverted 40 per cent of America’s maize crop to feeding cars instead of people, thus driving up the price of food worldwide, a move which according to one study killed about 192,000 poor people in 2010 alone,
and continues to affect nutrition worldwide. We’ve restricted aid funding for fossil-fuelled power stations in developing countries, leaving many people who would otherwise have had access to electricity mired in darkness and cooking over wood-fires — the biggest environmental cause of ill health, responsible for more than three million deaths every year.


Closer to home, by pushing up energy prices with climate policies, we’ve contributed to the loss of jobs of steelworkers in Redcar and Scunthorpe, and of aluminium workers in Northumberland (where I live and where coal from under my land has supplied the now-closed Lynemouth smelter — whose power station announced this week that it will reopen as a ‘biomass’ plant, that is to say burning wood from American forests, producing more carbon dioxide per unit of energy and at twice the price of coal).
We’ve also worsened fuel poverty among the poor and elderly and we’ve damaged air quality in cities. These human costs are not imaginary or theoretical: they are real.

But ends can be used to justify means, and omelettes cannot be made without breaking eggs. We justify the painful impact of policy by saying over and over that it helps to avert a far greater threat that faces ‘our grandchildren’. So exactly how great is that threat?

Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, one of the world’s most respected climate economists, has had a stab at answering this question in a new paper accepted for publication in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, which takes all 22 published studies of all the impacts of climate change, good and bad, economic and environmental, and generates an average effect on welfare. This is what he has to say:

Global warming of 2.5˚C would make the average person feel as if she had lost 1.3 per cent of her income… That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth. Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems. Up till 2.2˚C, he says, our grandchildren will actually still be better off as a result of global warming. When I first reported in The Spectator in 2013 that the balance of evidence suggests that mild global warming will do more good than harm and that this would continue till the later decades of this century, I was subjected to torrents of abuse in the Guardian and other house organs of wealthy greens. Yet it has now come to be accepted as conventional wisdom.

Yes, but what if climate change proves worse than we expect and the century sees more than 2.5˚C of warming? (Actually, given what we now know about climate sensitivity, that’s unlikely: the probability density function for such rapid warming is very slim and depends on unrealistically large net-positive feedbacks.) Professor Tol says the following: ‘The impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5˚C warming.’ And remember that ‘our grandchildren’ will on average be much richer than we are today. If they are not, then there’s not much of a problem because they won’t be generating emissions at a worrying rate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its various scenarios that the people of 2100 will be between three and 20 times as well off in income terms as the people of today — and that’s despite climate change. In the ‘middle of the road’ scenario prepared by the OECD for the IPCC, which sees generally disappointing global economic progress, the average Indonesian, Brazilian or Chinese will earn at least twice as much as today’s American does. That’s how rich ‘our grandchildren’ will be, never mind Barack’s. In causing pain today for benefit tomorrow, we are transferring money from the poor to the rich.

So let’s just pause to reflect what is going on here. President Obama, President Putin, Prince Charles, Ban Ki-Moon and the Pope are urging us to worry about what will probably be a 1.3 per cent fall in the income (or about 3.5 per cent if we get 3.5˚C of warming) of a person who is at least three times as well off as we are today. That is to say, they would be at least 196.5 per cent richer, instead of 200 per cent. And yet world leaders are prepared to adopt and defend policies that hurt poor people today in order to try to avert this very slight pay cut for the very wealthy of tomorrow. In what universe does this entitle them to occupy the moral high ground?

Oh and by the way, perhaps we should ask the poor people of the world themselves what they think about this? On Monday Mr Obama quoted an Indonesian girl he met recently who was worried about climate change. I wonder how he managed to find her. The United Nations is carrying out a huge online survey of people’s priorities. Called ‘My World’, it allows people to rank 16 categories of things they care about. So far
more than 8.5 million people have voted, mostly from poorer countries, and the number is growing all the time. Education, health, jobs and good governance come top. Action on climate change comes last — and not by a narrow margin either: it lags well behind the second-least popular priority (phone and internet access). Even among people aged 15 or younger, it comes last.

Climate change is an obsession of the rich which is not shared by the global poor, who care more about everything, even getting online. They can see all too well that a slight diminution of income in two generations’ time is not as important as decent health, education and a better living standard today. So let’s cut the humbug about speaking on behalf of poor posterity, please. Though they might not mean to, the green great and good are on the side of the rich.

Not that the inhabitants of rich countries are any longer much enamoured of such policies. As Gallup reports: ‘Warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years.’ In another poll last week just 13 per cent of Canadians chose climate change as one of their top three concerns.

In Globescan’s poll for the BBC of 20 countries, there has been a marked decline in concern about climate change, and in enthusiasm for climate policies, since 2009: only four countries now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris, compared with eight before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009. Just under half of people in these countries consider climate change a ‘very serious’ problem, compared with 63 per cent in 2009.


The Paris climate conference has attracted about 40,000 delegates and camp followers, from politicians and civil servants to journalists and campaigners. I don’t have the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that very few of them paid their own air fares or hotel bills. A goodly proportion will have sent the bill to taxpayers in various countries, either directly or via the grants that governments give to green pressure groups.

Perhaps the politicians should stop listening to the vested interest of the Green Blob and begin asking what long-suffering taxpayers and real voters think about hitting poor people today in order to protect the incomes of rich people in 2100?

Matt Ridley’s books include The Rational Optimist, The Red Queen and Genome.[/quote]

615

These IS an interesting discussion to be had on the pause Fred, but while you are at the level of Lord Monckton you simply don’t even understand the question yet. If you want some reading on the issue try these.

Bristol University No substantive evidence for ‘pause’ in global warming

From NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey and Naomi Oreskes Hiatus or Bye-atus?

Stefan Rahmstorf Debate in the noise

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus by authors homas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1

616

Very interesting. So are we back to the argument that AT LEAST 60 years are needed in order to represent the BEGINNING of significance in climate trends? I merely ask because your links suggest that the 19 years or 15 years before or 12 years are “too short” a time span and thus would be “insignificant” in terms of establishing trends in climate change. I will happily await your response :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

617

Never said there isn’t a legitimate debate regarding how long should the period be before it is considered significant or a legitimate debate concerning the rate of increase and how that in turn connects with the accuracy of predicted models.

Just pointing out material and claims from Christopher Moncton fall outside any legitimate and intelligent debate both in terms of content and in terms of credibility of the source. He’s figured out one thing, if he spouts phases about how he uses a “least-squares linear-regression trend”, he’s confused 99.9% of the population. People who understand and work in this field on the other hand, real scientists, either dismiss him out of hand, spend time to rip his work apart periodically or just hold him in contempt.

618

Wow. Dissemble much?

He has provided the satellite data. Is the satellite data not from the sources that he says it is? Did he “reconstitute” the satellite temperature records? So, I guess that will be two noes. Then, your issue is that the data (available since only 1979 and really 1982) is too short in length to be able to draw any significant climactic conclusions in which case being in 2015, why that would make anything after 1955 suspect… how convenient! Why isn’t that the VERY year that Vay indicated was the STARTING POINT for when MAN became PRIMARILY responsible for global warming? Why that just bewilders the mind, doesn’t it. The very confounded coincidence of that… especially since those datasets have had to be call it what you will: reconstituted, rejiggered, adjusted, graduated, averaged, weighted, reimagined… Yes, let’s go with reimagined… so many times over the past 35 years that they are laughably no better than laying out the deck and choosing your cards one at a time to “win” at solitaire. How do you sleep at night?

But then the real issue is this: IF we have data sets that are not even as old as 1979/1982, HOW CAN these possibly be used to formulate climate pattern predictions for the next 100 years?

Choice is yours. Either we need a MINIMUM of 60 years for climate discussions or we don’t. Happy to go with whatever you choose.

As to the “real” scientists… you mean the “real scientists who agree with your alarmism” but who need to keep rejiggering their models to make them work. Remind me again about what the definition of scientific theory and practice are? Please :slight_smile:

619

Fred, the problem is, I doubt you even know what the global mean temperature is, how data from satellites can be used to create something useful, or in the case of Monckton considerably less useful. I already provided numerous links that show just how pathetic this little man is. But feel free to cling on to what he says both because you don’t understand what he is doing, and because the message is one you want to hear. Despite that fact every scientist in this field disagrees with him. Honestly, if you can’t lift yourself up beyond such tripe after giving this subject so much thought you should perhaps take up another hobby.

regarding 60 years to make climate decisions, you said one of the papers claimed that. I doubt that is true, care to show the link? Even if one of them did, that is much more than the 30 year period many scientists claim would be needed to make a period statistically significant, and even that is too long, it was being argued that the 15 years following 1998 was statistically significant by some, although the last few years have thrown a wrench in that one.

See, doesn’t need to be black or white Fred. When you try and make it a binary equation you just come across as someone who can’t grasp the basic facts under discussion.

[quote=“fred smith”]
As to the “real” scientists… you mean the “real scientists who agree with your alarmism” but who need to keep rejiggering their models to make them work. Remind me again about what the definition of scientific theory and practice are? Please :slight_smile:[/quote]

No, if you can’t tell the difference between a climate scientist and Christopher Monckton, all you do is display ignorance. It’s as bad as someone telling me a witch doctor knows as much about medicine as a doctor who, you know, went the traditional route and studied the subject in University, interned at a hospital and spent his life studying medicine. If you cant see the difference, Im sorry Fred, theres no more to discuss with you.

620

I don’t need to believe or disbelieve in Monckton. You have the satellite data. It is not something that he invented. He is citing it. What is wrong with the accuracy of the satellite data and how is the fact that it shows no warming in 19 years wrong? I know what you are trying to do, but… hahaha I ain’t buying it. And, you will soon see, no one else really is either. But hey? A free trip to Paris? Sign me up as a Believer too. When do I leave?

Oh and despite your many words, you did say, did you not? that you would be supply evidence and facts and such and sources and whatever thingamajigy thingys scientists come up with like oh evidence er and stuff to um like show your like point?