Lord Monckton claims Global Warming is exaggerated.

[Deleted]

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.

I was talking about some of the material that he was using to debunk it, through I might add, observations.

[Felya]

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.

What was the question asked? Because unlike oil industries job, climatologists job is to report their observations. An oil companies job, is to actually answer a question. Do you know what that question is?

[Deleted]

I'm allergic to hearing stupid, mind just telling me what those errors are(according to this genius who bases his arguments on myths).

OK I understand, you don't understand the math.

I don't understand the bit with all the circuits and diagrams and the last error, but I understand the first lot of errors he talks about.

I was hoping someone here could put it in a way we could all understand (even the math illiterate).

[schwank05]

Honestly Who gives a shit? Does it affect you in any way shape or form? No? Then honestly who gives a shit. You are not going to change people overnight or even in the next 100 years.

[Shadowferal]

Most of anyone that's in the UKIP isn't bright to begin with.

Seriously, someone that is no better than a Klansman (as such is compared in the US) yelling about fake news.

[Deleted]

Honestly Who gives a shit? Does it affect you in any way shape or form? No? Then honestly who gives a shit. You are not going to change people overnight or even in the next 100 years.

Yes because I have to write a school assignment on this and I am trying to understand what he did. I had hoped someone would have countered his arguments here as it would have given me something to talk about in my assignment.

[Dug]

Yes because I have to write a school assignment on this and I am trying to understand what he did. I had hoped someone would have countered his arguments here as it would have given me something to talk about in my assignment.

What type of whack school/class is this?

[Barnabas]

i dismiss the idea of conspiracy theory because that's just good for Hollywood movie script, not in real life.

If a scientists has conclusive and irrefutable evidence that a commonly accepted idea is wrong, he will publish, he will never hold back. That is the best way to make a name for yourself in the scientific world, to show you can think outside the establishment.

It's like this idea that NASA and every space agency around the world have concealed the fact for decades that the world is flat, conspiracy theories are ludicrous.

While concealing evidence has been known with multinational company in oil , pharmaceuticals or others high profile industry, we are not talking about that now. We are talking humble university professors or research institute scientists here.

People thought stephen hawking had all this irrefutable proof that his black hole theory was correct. A guy comes along and proves him wrong. I bet you can't nor anyone else can name him without using a search engine. Lol so there goes your famous theory nonsense. There is equally a lot of money riding on climate change being caused by humans is fact. To think agencies, companies or government officials won't use it to raise awareness which fosters policy and creates money to promote these interests is laughable.

[sarahtasher]

What type of whack school/class is this?

It's agitprop 101 ''I'm just asking questions''

[Barnabas]

I'm not watching it because it's his own work that has not been peer reviewed versus the millions of man-hours, papers, peer review for AGW.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not skepticism that you hold, it's called denial and in the political cases, delusional thinking caused by conservative and Russian propaganda.

No it's skepticism. It could be true today and later recanted or proven wrong. That's one of the problems with you climate chimps. It's that you make all of this "mountain of evidence" out to be the only truth when it fact it could be but might not be.


[Infracted - Flaming]

[Dug]

No it's skepticism. It could be true today and later recanted or proven wrong. That's one of the problems with you climate chimps. It's that you make all of this "mountain of evidence" out to be the only truth when it fact it could be but might not be.

The skepticism should be backed by their own data/findings and not just "Well you could be wrong...". That's lazy skepticism that contributes nothing.

[Daelak]

No it's skepticism. It could be true today and later recanted or proven wrong. That's one of the problems with you climate chimps. It's that you make all of this "mountain of evidence" out to be the only truth when it fact it could be but might not be.

No, it definitely is fact, because it literally would have to be evidence that would change our fundamental understanding of physics and chemistry to be incorrect.

[Barnabas]

The skepticism should be backed by their own data/findings and not just "Well you could be wrong...". That's lazy skepticism that contributes nothing.

Well when this 'evidence" doesn't ever really answer any questions you have what other option do you have? Evidence so far is measuring the planets capability to absorb and transfer carbon. Then blaming humans for all of it and even a natural mechanism that has occurred long before we were ever on earth. Leaving even more questions to be answered.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it definitely is fact, because it literally would have to be evidence that would change our fundamental understanding of physics and chemistry to be incorrect.

And now you put your blinders on again.

[Dug]

Well when this 'evidence" doesn't ever really answer any questions you have what other option do you have? Evidence so far is measuring the planets capability to absorb and transfer carbon. Then blaming humans for all of it. Leaving even more questions to be answered.

No one is blaming humans for all of it they're saying that they're contributing and that more carbon is entering than leaving. Which contributes to the natural warming trend the planet was already undergoing but at a much faster rate when comparing it to the geologic record.

Don't even need to be a trained scientist to put two and two together there. Put lots of extra carbon into the atmosphere and.. yeah

[BreakerOfWills]

All science aside the idea of a bunch of oil billionaires saying to people "dont believe those people, they stand to make money from alternative energy!" and the people actually believing it is insane to me. It's like beef farmers telling people chicken are evil, the ulterior motive is so blatant it should be mocked but nope, "what could fossil fuel billionaires possibly have to gain by everyone giving them all the money always, they HAVE to be trustworthy, no one would ever LIE to stay a billionaire!"

[Vankrys]

People thought stephen hawking had all this irrefutable proof that his black hole theory was correct. A guy comes along and proves him wrong. I bet you can't nor anyone else can name him without using a search engine. Lol so there goes your famous theory nonsense. There is equally a lot of money riding on climate change being caused by humans is fact. To think agencies, companies or government officials won't use it to raise awareness which fosters policy and creates money to promote these interests is laughable.

i'll be honest, i am not familiar with that story, nor do i think it's related. Black hole is a conceptual astral body, it's not like you can send probe into it and measure temperature or anything. Black hole research have to be highly theoretical, and hypothesis can be wrong, that is the beauty of science, it check itself if it's wrong.

Temperature rising, atmosphere composition throughout the different ages of the planet are a lot easier to access and study. Just because one guy was wrong about black hole doesn't mean the immense majority of climate scientists are wrong because one viscount with a journalist degree paid a chinese journal to publish a paper.

Come on, skepticism is healthy but full on denial and stubbornness isn't. Do you have at least some scientific basis for your skepticism outside conspiracy theories.

Speaking of which, while you can imagine a small percentage of scientist willfully being dishonest for personal or career gain, the vast majority of them would never be on board. You are speaking of a conspiracy of titanic proportion, involving thousands of scientist from all over the world, different country, different language, different culture, different interest, different political views. Let's just be serious for a minute.

[Pterodactylus]

Well what he is saying in that recent 2016 presentation hasn't been debunked by anyone so far (from what my internet search reveals)

Laughable.

[Daelak]

Well when this 'evidence" doesn't ever really answer any questions you have what other option do you have? Evidence so far is measuring the planets capability to absorb and transfer carbon. Then blaming humans for all of it and even a natural mechanism that has occurred long before we were ever on earth. Leaving even more questions to be answered.

- - - Updated - - -



And now you put your blinders on again.

No, you are in denial about the extent of knowledge we have of chemistry and AGW.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

This war on science makes me sad and it seems to be gaining more and more momentum thanks to social media. Every day I see shit on my Facebook feed from friends who post how the Egyptians had an atomic bomb or how the Earth is really flat or how a Russian nobody predicts Niberu will hit us or how vaccines give you autism and it leaves me in disbelief that these otherwise smart people can find sense in something not only dumb but so widely discredited among the vast, vast, vast majority of the scientific community.

Folks still refer to Alan Wakefield when it comes to a link between vaccines and autism for Christ sake and it's to the point where pockets of once eradicated measles and mumps in North America are resurfacing in areas like Nova Scotia which is experiencing a recent outbreak across the province with both.

[Barnabas]

i'll be honest, i am not familiar with that story, nor do i think it's related. Black hole is a conceptual astral body, it's not like you can send probe into it and measure temperature or anything. Black hole research have to be highly theoretical, and hypothesis can be wrong, that is the beauty of science, it check itself if it's wrong.

Temperature rising, atmosphere composition throughout the different ages of the planet are a lot easier to access and study. Just because one guy was wrong about black hole doesn't mean the immense majority of climate scientists are wrong because one viscount with a journalist degree paid a chinese journal to publish a paper.

Come on, skepticism is healthy but full on denial and stubbornness isn't. Do you have at least some scientific basis for your skepticism outside conspiracy theories.

Speaking of which, while you can imagine a small percentage of scientist willfully being dishonest for personal or career gain, the vast majority of them would never be on board. You are speaking of a conspiracy of titanic proportion, involving thousands of scientist from all over the world, different country, different language, different culture, different interest, different political views. Let's just be serious for a minute.

Oh look another climate talk and if you have any questions you are a denier. Back to blanket truths and you can't question it or any evidence because we can't have any thought exist that the way any data is being presented is dishonest. It's relatable because it's a famous science story that pretty much everyone agreed with to the point they taught people in schools it was true. It was proven false at a later date.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are in denial about the extent of knowledge we have of chemistry and AGW.

Back to the blanket statement if you any questions then you are a denier. So black and white guys.