Lord Monckton claims Global Warming is exaggerated.

[Deleted]

And here's a video showing the complete and utter idiocracy of this guy and Stefan Molyneux:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

That video doesn't mention anything about the 4 errors of the IPCC climate sensitivity calculations Monckton explains in his presentation.

[Daelak]

It has actually been peer reviewed in a paper called 'Why models run hot' in a Chinese scientific journal called the Bulletin.

- - - Updated - - -



What is the name of that debunked study?

Wow one paper, in a questionable journal. Why didn't he submit it to Nature? Oh, it's probably filled with those grant grubbers and millionaire climate change scientists.

[Deleted]

You could not be any more vague.

Huh? What do you mean?

[Deleted]

Wow one paper, in a questionable journal. Why didn't he submit it to Nature? Oh, it's probably filled with those grant grubbers and millionaire climate change scientists.

It's actually a pretty reputable journal.

[Mayhem]

Huh? What do you mean?

I get it you didn´t even bother to search for that article, right?

[boyzma]

Wait...come on guys. Donald THE Trump our cheeto god has told us that climate change is not real. It's a conspiracy theory made up by the Chinese for something about business and blah blah blah. The Lord Mockington has about as much credibility as Trump...so there we go....2 unqualified idiots saying it isn't real so it must be so. Amiright? /s

[Mayhem]

It's actually a pretty reputable journal.

How would you know?

[Deleted]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

People keep linking this but there isn't any argument to counter what the Lord says about the 4 IPCC errors of climate sensitivity in his recent presentation (the video I linked at the start).

[sarahtasher]

Eraxx, those are corrections. Your sites tell you that they are not, but those are.

[Deleted]

And his opinion carries weight because he is a...

Fill in the blank.

Here's his wikipedia article, if you can find something in here other than "upper class twit of the year":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...n_of_Brenchley

He has a BA in Classics and a diploma of journalism. These are technically degrees.

It doesn't matter what he is or his background, the fact is that he has presented 4 major errors in the IPCC sensitivity calculations, which determine future temperature predictions, and therefore, if AGW is as bad as it's made out to be, and no one seems to be able to refute these errors.

What is true is true, doesn't matter who or what says it...

[Phlegethon]

Why do you think it is bullshit? What is your counter argument?

Well...
"While not formally trained in science"
Dafuq does he know?

[Deleted]

Eraxx, those are corrections. Your sites tell you that they are not, but those are.

What do you mean?

[Phlegethon]

It doesn't matter what he is or his background

Probably the most important bit though

[Vankrys]

It has actually been peer reviewed in a paper called 'Why models run hot' in a Chinese scientific journal called the Bulletin.

in the open access section where all you need to publish there is to sign a check for $2,500.
As for the publication itself, there were glaring mistake confusing forcing and sensitivity.

He ignores yhe positive feedback, which basically assume that rising the temperature of the planet by 1°C triggers a bunch of events that forces the earth out of equilibrium (like increase evaporation rate of the ocean, melting of the ice pole, higher methane and water vapor content in the atmosphere), which leads to an increase in temperature, until equilibrium is reached.

In other words, he lacks proper scientific training to fully grasp the problem, and he endeavors to prove his point rather than let the evidence and calculation make the point themselves.

[Wildtree]

Why do you think it is bullshit? What is your counter argument?

Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer.

How many of these positions do you think earn him money for denouncing the scientific consent?

Ever occurred to you that he makes a living from that shit, because there are enough simpletons out there that don't have the two brain cells it requires to debunk him..? Yes, only 2 brain cells, it's that obvious.

[Daelak]

It's actually a pretty reputable journal.

Not really, and considering the reputations of Monckton and his other scientists whose expertise are not in climate science, it's not valid.

[Deleted]

Well...
"While not formally trained in science"
Dafuq does he know?

Just because he doesn't have a piece of paper saying that he is a scientist doesn't mean that what he says is garbage. What is true is true. Sure, a scientific background would give credibility to his claims, but they woduln't make them true.

[Thage]

"So, that's our plan to reduce emissions, lower our impact on the environment, clean up our water supply, and create jobs revitalizing our infrastructure to be more energy-efficient. Any questions?"
"Yeah, what if we do all this stuff and leave our children a better, greener world but it turns out we did it for no reason?"

[Phlegethon]

Just because he doesn't have a piece of paper saying that he is a scientist doesn't mean that what he says is garbage. What is true is true. Sure, a scientific background would give credibility to his claims, but they woduln't make them true.

YOU SAY IT YOURSELF: it is not a credible source.
The chances of him knowing what he's saying is next to zero

[Deleted]

How many of these positions do you think earn him money for denouncing the scientific consent?

Ever occurred to you that he makes a living from that shit, because there are enough simpletons out there that don't have the two brain cells it requires to debunk him..? Yes, only 2 brain cells, it's that obvious.

I am waiting for someone to come along and debunk these 4 errors he has found with the IPCC calculations of climate sensitivity, but no one has been able to do it. Has it occured to you that he could be correct?