Lord Monckton claims Global Warming is exaggerated.

[Dug]

The anti-science crusade continues.

[Revi]

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).

Not going to watch the whole thing, sorry. What are those 4 errors?

As a sidenote, the Lord have made climate predictions of his own in the past. They have turned out to be dead wrong. Not just "wrong by a few percent" wrong, but wrong like predicting climate cooling down when it turned out to be heating up. So predicting the exact opposite of what happened.

Not necessarily relevant to whatever 4 errors he claims to have found in others' calculation, but if he can't make any decent calculations of his own I'm not very trusting of the critique he makes of others'.

[Deleted]

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

That is silly.

No, I said that if he WAS considered a scientist, then more people would take him seriously, but the fact that he is not doesn't mean that he is talking garbage.

You know, people can pick up a book and learn at any stage in their life, and then discover new things. They don't need qualifications in that field or subject to allow them to do this.

[Techno-Druid]

Really? Stefan Molyneux, the totalitarian-minded, pseudo-intellectual and "racial realist" with the irrational hate of women.

[Revi]

"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?"

Yeah, this is why I don't understand the resistance.

I'm not qualified to figure anything out about climate on my own, but scientists agree time and time again to have calculated and measured that it's going in a certain direction.

So when their proposed solutions are of benefit to me regardless of whether or not they're right, I don't see a reason to distrust them all.

If their proposed solutions were horribly inconvenient and seemed to make the world a worse place as well as making specific groups very rich, I might be a lot more skeptical and understanding of the people refusing to believe them. But this isn't the case, so I don't understand why people (common people, not oil companies) really want us all to stop believing them.

[Deleted]

So from what I could somewhat understand and put perspective on; he is essentially debunking pretty old models and that those models have already been debunked (or you know as it is with theoretical work, replaced by better and more precise models).

He isn't so much wrong, he is essentially just stating something that the community already knew and have moved beyond.

[Deleted]

It's right there as the first item on the list. Here's where it takes you since links are hard.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...ensitivity.htm

While it discusses climate sensitivity, it's not relevant to what Monckton is saying, specifically error 3 and 4 of his presentation.

[Shadowferal]

Oh, is that dumbass still peddling his bullshit?

Ya...looks like..

It's even sadder that others are peddling his shit as well.

[Jeezy911]

Don't forget it has been over 10 years since Al Gore said the planet was in a 10 year tipping point. I think we are supposed to be dead now.

[Daelak]

Don't forget it has been over 10 years since Al Gore said the planet was in a 10 year tipping point. I think we are supposed to be dead now.

Largest forced migration of human beings from Africa and the ME since WW2 say hi.

[Adam Jensen]

And why is this one guy more credible than the vast majority of scientists across the world? How did he find the one thing all these thousands of independent scientists missed?

[Deleted]

So from what I could somewhat understand and put perspective on; he is essentially debunking pretty old models and that those models have already been debunked (or you know as it is with theoretical work, replaced by better and more precise models).

He isn't so much wrong, he is essentially just stating something that the community already knew and have moved beyond.

He has debunked the way the IPCC calculate climate sensitivity by explaining how they have made a series of mathematical errors in the climate sensitivity equations. It is not so much old models as the IPCC have recently used this equation to calculate climate sensivity in their latest assessment report 5, so it is very recent stuff. The community do seem to know about it but they aren't saying anything about it because I think Monckton could be right.

[Deleted]

And I thought Stefan Molyneux still being taken seriously was the biggest joke in this thread

That is silly.

No, I said that if he WAS considered a scientist, then more people would take him seriously, but the fact that he is not doesn't mean that he is talking garbage.

You know, people can pick up a book and learn at any stage in their life, and then discover new things. They don't need qualifications in that field or subject to allow them to do this.

He's allowed to do whatever he wants. That doesn't make him right, or credible. You need to earn that by either having a large amount of professionals support you or being one yourself. You might've heard of Athene who does the exact same thing but in the field of psychology.

[Felya]

So from what I could somewhat understand and put perspective on; he is essentially debunking pretty old models and that those models have already been debunked (or you know as it is with theoretical work, replaced by better and more precise models).

He isn't so much wrong, he is essentially just stating something that the community already knew and have moved beyond.

No, he is outright lying. The OP him self is down to repeating 'what about error 3 and 4', without realizing what that means for everything else he said. It's pretty interesting to watch actually...

[Mayhem]

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?

So you´re telling us that miami beach are lifting their streets for no reason at all? Quick, someone should tell them that their $400 million project is a waste of money, there is no flooding, everything is fine.

Anyway what about those 4 errors make global warming not a thing? Is lesser sea ice extent year by year also not a thing? How about global mean temperature?

[Adam Jensen]

He also receives funding from oil companies and has a history of false and outrageous claims.

Well, that's all I need to know to dismiss his claims. Why should I trust anyone's opinion on global warming when they're paid by the oil industry?

[Felya]

He has debunked the way the IPCC calculate climate sensitivity by explaining how they have made a series of mathematical errors in the climate sensitivity equations. It is not so much old models as the IPCC have recently used this equation to calculate climate sensivity in their latest assessment report 5, so it is very recent stuff. The community do seem to know about it but they aren't saying anything about it because I think Monckton could be right.

They didn't, just like his previous statement that you have no issue ignoring, he doesn't understand what he is talking about. He doesn't pose a question of there being climate change, but how to convince others that it's not real. Him misunderstanding and misusing numbers ina new way, doesn't change the fact that he keeps misusing these numbers. What you have been shown, is explicitly how he has made these mistakes before, but you think this will be different. Doing the same thing over again, but expecting different results, is insanity...

[Deleted]

Well, that's all I need to know to dismiss his claims. Why should I trust anyone's opinion on global warming when they're paid by the oil industry?

Because he has used the scientific method of observation and inference. This is an objective method with only 1 correct answer. It is not a matter of opinion influenced by political bias, it is a matter of fact - the truth.

[Dug]

Because he has used the scientific method of observation and inference. This is an objective method with only 1 correct answer. It is not a matter of opinion influenced by political bias, it is a matter of fact - the truth.

And yet that same method is questioned when climate scientists use it because according to deniers they're in the pocket of Globalist green energy companies...

[Felya]

Well, that's all I need to know to dismiss his claims. Why should I trust anyone's opinion on global warming when they're paid by the oil industry?

The same reason why you should believe his error 3 and 4. He misused data to show these errors before, but because he is self taught, he is still learning. Once 3 and 4 are explained away, we can wait for 5 and 6. Because his past doesn't show incompetence, it means he is still learning.