Lord Monckton Video

[Philip]

You assessment is unjust. Climate theory is over 100 years old. Computer models didn't come into it until the 90s.

So what evidence is there other than computer models?

[Mike Davis]

Groupie:
The so called climate theory you refer to as being over 100 years old was falsified in 1906 by the Wood's experiments. Models are not experiments. Balloon measurements are experiments but the models used to homogenize them corrupted the results. There are papers about all that but you seem to only be interested in those papers that support the "Agenda".
Your hero claimed in an interview that the science is settled but the "Denier" movement is producing a propaganda campaign to promote false data that disagree with his obviously great results. ( or some bullshit like that). It is just like I said before the alarmists promote their version on pseudo science based on fantasy and claim other are doing what they are doing. Most guilty people claim innocence and attempt to blame others when all evidence points to them. Next they will claim poor upbringing or they lack understanding of proper procedures. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity! They do not understand statistics! (That has already been used but they continue the same old way) Applying regressive practices promotes growth! (just convince the poor of the world).

[Gropes]

You assessment is unjust. Climate theory is over 100 years old. Computer models didn't come into it until the 90s.

So what evidence is there other than computer models?

How observing the state of the climate. I suppose you're going to tell me scientist say there's no warming in the last 15 years. The greatest misquote of the century?

[Gropes]

Groupie:
The so called climate theory you refer to as being over 100 years old was falsified in 1906 by the Wood's experiments. Models are not experiments. Balloon measurements are experiments but the models used to homogenize them corrupted the results. There are papers about all that but you seem to only be interested in those papers that support the "Agenda".
Your hero claimed in an interview that the science is settled but the "Denier" movement is producing a propaganda campaign to promote false data that disagree with his obviously great results. ( or some bullshit like that). It is just like I said before the alarmists promote their version on pseudo science based on fantasy and claim other are doing what they are doing. Most guilty people claim innocence and attempt to blame others when all evidence points to them. Next they will claim poor upbringing or they lack understanding of proper procedures. They thought they were doing what was best for humanity! They do not understand statistics! (That has already been used but they continue the same old way) Applying regressive practices promotes growth! (just convince the poor of the world).

So you are trying to tell me climate science is falsified by that one experiment? The whole field is wrong? scientists are barking up the wrong tree? Like 3 words in an email makes climate science a scam? After Himalayagate consists of a typo in a 3000 page document.

[Ravenna]

Lord Monckton is a charlatan. He uses misleading arguments to put his point across and sprouts the same junk science found in the Alternative Consensus complied by Dr Singer. A consensus funded by the Heartland Institute, well know right wing think tank heavily funded by ExxonMobil.

Ad homonyms is all you have as your counterpoint against a video presentation.

Sad.

[Ravenna]

Groupie:
By your wonderful comments you declared your title. It is necessary for you to project those things you find objectionable within your own group onto the group opposing your views. The world needs people like Monckton and Professor Singer to counter the pseudo science being promoted by the propaganda machine known as the IPCC.

Have you seen Monckton's slides? Most of it comes out of the alternative consensus. And I've read the alternative consensus. The only near-science they used was the cosmic ray theory, and even that was only based on a book by Svensmark.

Whereas Singer promotes anything he's paid to promote; smoking, breast implants etc etc

Still no actual counterpoint against the Video itself,just more crap from you.

[Ravenna]

It appears obvious that Groupie took up the challenge from Moonbat and joined of chat session to provide lessons in right thinking!

Oh dear, I think you are probably right Mike. His comments so far are about the standard you'd expect from a Moonbat groupie. Come on, gropes why not provide us with some serious comments and give questioner some help?

What kind of forum is this? Moonbat/Groupie? You lot take to calling people names even before they start?

Seriously, have you read Monckton's slides? Or the alternative consensus? Sure I agree Monckton and Singer are not serious commentators on the subject. Closer to jokers with latter being more sinister.

Still no counterpoint against the video!

[Ravenna]

Groupie:
Yes Actually I have read some of Monckton's writings along with some of Singer's and it appears they provide more critical thinking than some of the AGW fanatics.
Speaking of which You have not yet provided any rational conversation as proof of being more than a "TROLL".
I occasionally read Icecap, SPPI, WUWT, CA, JoNova, Bishop Hill, Tom Nelson, along with selected others and would be happy to share with you selected sites that provide evidence of real scientific research into climate change and other naturally occurring events.
I would prefer to used evidence based opinions as a point of discussion however by opening your first post defending bad science practices you became a target and at times I do enjoy target practice.

Well, if you want proof, go see a mathematician or a lawyer. Climate science is based on observation and experimentations.

And who's defending bad science practices. I'm merely setting the record straight on some of the emails. Scientists are being castigated on a few out of context words. A few carefully cherry picked words by no means make climate science a scam.

Still no counterpoint from you against the Video.

[Ravenna]

It is plain that Groupie is a TROLL,since he just post baloney over and over,diverting threads and such.

Why can't you just post a rational counterpoint against the video?,otherwise you have posted nothing of value in the entire thread.

Why are you here?

[Gropes]

Groupie:
Yes Actually I have read some of Monckton's writings along with some of Singer's and it appears they provide more critical thinking than some of the AGW fanatics.
Speaking of which You have not yet provided any rational conversation as proof of being more than a "TROLL".
I occasionally read Icecap, SPPI, WUWT, CA, JoNova, Bishop Hill, Tom Nelson, along with selected others and would be happy to share with you selected sites that provide evidence of real scientific research into climate change and other naturally occurring events.
I would prefer to used evidence based opinions as a point of discussion however by opening your first post defending bad science practices you became a target and at times I do enjoy target practice.

Well, if you want proof, go see a mathematician or a lawyer. Climate science is based on observation and experimentations.

And who's defending bad science practices. I'm merely setting the record straight on some of the emails. Scientists are being castigated on a few out of context words. A few carefully cherry picked words by no means make climate science a scam.

Still no counterpoint from you against the Video.

Which particular point do you want to start with? Shall we go from the beginning, the arctic ice coverage? Unfortunately, Lord Monckton doesn't seem to understand the difference between surface area and volume. Perhaps Lord Monckton would like to add to his University of Illinois graph, Arctic Sea Surface Ice. Which is something he conveniently ignores in his presentation.

Perhaps NASA would be a better source.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... inice.html

The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.