Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.
A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis
By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in Opinions | March 7, 2012
As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.
And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.
…
Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.
…
Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore. The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans. While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.
[end excerpts]
===============================================================
Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this: “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.
It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker…
She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.
…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.
Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
===============================================================
Monckton responds in comments to that article
Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Oh, come off it, Professor!
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!
The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.
He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.
The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.
– The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.
– Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.
– Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.
Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.
Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.
Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.
The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.
Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.
The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.
Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.
The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.
The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey says:
March 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Seriously, I am still looking for testable evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused any regional or global harm.
=====================================
What, never heard about the dead polar bear? (LOL)
OK Greg, you win! A dead polar bear is sufficient evidence of climate disruption. You have finally convinced me. Now if you will excuse me, I have an urgent appointment with my astrologer.
[/s]
Greg House says:
March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Myrrh says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm
As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes,
=================================================
No problem with indications, generally there are a lot of things, that might more or less indicate something or not, but at the moment, when someone derives a “colder world” out of such an indication, I want to see this “colder world” proven. Since they talk about “global temperature” I want it to be proven, that the “global temperature” at that times was lower than now. If they can not do that, then they can not reasonably talk about colder world 300 years ago or generally in the past.
They may of course say “we do not know about the whole world, but the Central England was colder”, no problem. Although in this case I might ask them to prove, that they have a representative sample of indicators or that they used a correct method to calculate “Central England Temperature”, but this is another story.
Science, good science, begins and ends with observation, and in a subject like global climate that is first of all obtained by gathering as much such indications as one can to build up a picture and temperature records are only a small part of the wealth of information we have gathered, (and we’d be better served here if the bozos hadn’t spent the last few decades tampering with these, which tampering kicked off in New Zealand organised by CRU). We have added to local observations globally through deliberate record keeping and through descriptions via historical events contemporaneously noted, what can only be described as mind-blowing wealth of information as the infant Science organised itself to think about what it is seeing and not seeing and to deliberately gather information in pursuit of greater understanding – in a handful of centuries that has grown like topsy with the accompanying necessary division into areas of specialisation and we through general education and the spread of knowledge by improved communication are now in the privileged position of the polymath of old if we want to be, as this blog indicates a great many do. “We” can now with great confidence give an excellent account of global climate changes – going back billions of years..
Asking for proof outside of the context in which we have the information isn’t really very helpful. What we have is the still with boundless energy teenage geology at the forefront of information gathering into which we can fit our still growing knowledge of biology, chemistry, astronomy and so on – practically every field of science has some contribution to make in this subject of global climate change, and already has. We can with great confidence point to the central England temperature record as the precis indicator globally because we can in context fit it in and can fit into it, the wealth of knowledge we now have of global climate through the ages; knowing sufficiently well enough what it’s been and how it works to be able to do this. Which is why there were so many from the start who saw through the IPCC manipulations of real world sciences and general knowledge – what we’re seeing is the collation of information from those in the various disciplines and interests having already falsified the IPCC claims in their own field, now contributing to the spread of their proofs falsifying those claims; the Hockey Stick is broken..
While we can’t tell, yet, exactly what will happen next in global climate or even locally, patterns are emerging from the knowledge we have and still being gathered that we’re in the all too brief period of a few thousand years of interglacial and in the end times of that. We know we don’t know enough to be accurate as to exactly when and how this comes to an end and we begin our next around 100,000 year stint in the grip of our present Ice Age which is our normal climate globally by all the information we have about this, our interglacials brief respites from these much harsher conditions for vast areas of the globe. Because we know how little we know even given our now far greater knowledge at the present time, we know we don’t know what will happen next – that’s the required default position in any science discipline, which itself is based on the general default position of intelligent rational thinking. Our whole Ice Age could end tomorrow.
Science as a discipline is forbidden promoting speculation as if proven fact, that isn’t a restraint on speculation, but on conclusions out of speculation. For science to work it must have the freedom to speculate, to think inside and outside the box and any number of seemingly impossible things, but, unless and until any such speculation is amenable to the restrictions Science imposes on itself, it cannot call itself science.
There have always been charlatans who’ve claimed they have knowledge of cause and effect, but they are also charlatans who claim that unless something is proved and replicable that is not fact…. These hijack Science as much as they who demand belief in unproven speculations or manipulated data. Science above all is the freedom of creative thinking about the natural world, the self imposed constraints are not a hindrance to that, but to misuse of it in describing the properties and process of the natural world, which includes ourselves.
All this to say that to this end Science demands that any actual claims made are falsifiable. This doesn’t shut out exploration in Science or the inclusion of information found such as the central England temperature records, nor does it shut out those suggesting flimsy hypothesese or even those proposing revelations like the Higgs.., all included in Science in context, but it does shut out those who’d hi-jack Science pretending proof when as Smokey puts it, they don’t even have a hypothesis but only unscientific conjecture.
That these warmists, catastrophic and otherwise, have now hi-jacked the scientific bodies who should be upholding the principles makes it difficult for the general public to see the scam for what it is, but that was their intention all along. The warmists generally just don’t want to take on board that Science has alreadyshut them out, that they have nothing to say to real Science because they’re peddling junk passing itself off a science and that’s been shown conclusively, they just don’t want to give up their position of power and influence – however, they’re not entirely excluded, they’re included as specimens in the study of mankind..
For interest:
‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009
If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/01/Centralenglandtemperature.-355×288.png
The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.” Climate Cycles Change provides the analysis.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/
Myrrh says:
March 22, 2012 at 11:43 am
The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.”
=================================
Myrrh, you are welcome to make us familiar with the SCIENTIFIC method of determination whether a region can be considered a proxy for a much larger region.
We are talking about science here, aren’t we?
Beyond science everybody may consider whatever they want, but selling scientifically unproven considerations as science is not good.
The same goes for the existing network of thermometers. Is it representative for the areas where there is no thermometer? If yes, why? Because it is “considered” so?
Mr. Monckton, I’ve noticed a disturbing yet very predictable pattern. On one hand, you complain that critics don’t list the already well know detail of errors and misleading information that form a significant portion of your climate presentations – you’ve made similar complaints multiple time in the past. On the other hand, when someone like Mr. Peter Hadfield confronts you with those details and with solid evidence to support his criticism, you chose to avoid directly addressing the issues raised. A WUWT thread was setup for direct engagement between you and Mr. Hadfield concerning the details of your “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Your method of avoidance in that case? … You’ve apparently chosen not to engage at all, despite promising to do so by way of email to Mr. Watts.
Here is Peter Hadfield ‘s just released open letter to you, in video form, requesting return to engagement on the details, as you promised.
Evan Green,
Why does pothole fear a live debate with Lord Monckton? Becuase the truth is that he runs and hides out from any real debate, instead emitting his one-sided propaganda.
So let’s have a real, live debate between Lord Monckton and chicken-boi pothole. What are you and the pothole afraid of? The truth?
Smokey says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm
So let’s have a real, live debate between Lord Monckton and chicken-boi pothole.
======================================
Do not expect much from this debate, Smokey. Lord Monckton will not touch the 2 core issues: the capability of CO2 of causing a significant warming and the calculations of warming. He can beat the guy, but it will not change anything, because the main lever the warmists use will remain in place: “CO2 driven warming leading to the (catastrophic) climate change”. So they will continue use that lever. At most they will admit some minor errors, like the one about Himalayas glaciers, that is all.
Live debates are too short in duration, too limited in depth, and too high in rhetoric. Monckton is all about rhetorical, not the truth. Yesterday, Mr Hadfield posted an open video-letter to Mr. Monckton asking him to engage in the written debate that he promised to participate in … that is before Monckton reneged. I posted Mr. Hadfield’s open letter in my last post but the mod on duty then chose to edit it out. I’ll try again in a different format. Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?feature=watch
The question for you, Smokey, is: Why is Mr. Monckton so frightened oft debating Mr. Hadfield in a documented, in-depth, immediately verifiable fashion?
REPLY: Apparently Mr. Hadfield hasn’t noticed the U.S. tour Monckton is on now, having been on a similar tour, I wouldn’t have time either. Such travel tours can be grueling. While I can’t speak for Monckton, given what I’ve noticed that Hadfield never seems to be satisfied with anything said by Monckton, and continues with his one sides video “debate” that has no debate actually in it, only pronouncements, I probably wouldn’t waste any further time on him either. Now watch, Hadfield will take this statement and put it in another video, with the usual “ah-ha’s!”. I gave Hadfield his opportunity here (even though I was under no obligation to do so) and he keeps wanting more. That’s a sign of an attention seeker. Hadfield demanded Monckton respond in the venue he chose, here, Monckton did, and Hadfield wasn’t satisfied. I say its time for Hadfield and Monckton to go one on one in public. If Hadfield has the courage to step out of his comfort zone of attack videos he and he alone controls, that would be interesting then. After all, Hadfield insists its all about facts, and thus he shouldn’t be afraid of openly debating Monckton in public where a moderator manages it. Seems fair to me. – Anthony
Hogwash. Mr. Monckton has reserved plenty of time for multiple posts and interaction on WUWT alone. If Monckton can’t rely rhetorical flare and is, rather, forced to address issues on their own merits in a documented, in-depth, back-and-forth, verifiable way, he’s left exposed. It’s that simple. It’s Mr. Monckton who reneged on the two sided debate..
REPLY: Hogwash yourself Mr. “Green”. Hadfield wants in-depth, drag on for days, sorts of affairs, and the WUWT posts here are fleeting missives done in between tour duties. When I was at the presentation at Sacramento, Monckton’s time was monopolized by everyone.
Hadfield should come out of his speleological cave (Monkcton’s humorous reference to potholer54 that went over Hadfield’s head, and Hadfield took it as an ad hom instead of the wit that it was) and join Monckton on the dais. Hadfield won’t, because it is outside of his comfort zone. I had a heck of a time just getting Hadfield to write a blog post since he insists on working in video where he can control everything.
Hadfield attacks Monckton in his presentations before a live audience, something I’m quite familiar a sa live broiadcaster with and difficult to pull off perfect ever time. Hadfield should join Monckton in the venue he attacks him in.
The real question: aren’t you really Peter Hadfield using a proxy server in Phoenix using a fake name, fake email, and fake location to hide yourself while trying to goad me or Monckton into something? – Anthony
Wow. Agitated to the point of multiple misspellings and conspiracy theory. Impressive. No, Mr. Watts, I assure you I’m not Mr. Hadfield. I’m sure Mr. Hadfield is perfectly willing to wait for a lull in Mr. Monckton’s schedule. The problem is that Monckton has explicitly stated his intention of non-reply. You seem compelled to defend Mr. Monckton’s renege … why? As I stated in another thread, you want “showtime” not truth … All hat, no Cattle.
REPLY:LOL! I’m not the one doing the faking here. I noticed you ducked the other questions about all the other fakery I pointed out . All hat no cattle, indeed. Since you are using a fake persona and email, in violation of our blog policy, you’ll not be welcome to post any further. – Anthony
To the issue “live debate vs. blog debate”. I would like to suggest a sort of compromise.
What about a live debate with a moderator, but with clearly outlined and published questions, not just topics, which both debaters would agree upon in advance?
Greg House,
That’s how real debates are conducted. There is a specific Question that is debated, with a Moderator and debate rules.
Here is a good example, with a long tradition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union
IMHO, potholer54 would get slaughtered in a formal debate with Lord Monckton.
Smokey et al, please understand that debates aren’t football games. A conversation is a process of moving toward truth, which often gets distorted by unbalanced presentation, and inflamed rhetoric. There are some people who regard conversation as opportunities to persuade, and they can be quite uncivil, even bullyish. Your hero Monckton resorts to this technique when pressed or challenged. Truth is the first casualty of this inflamed process.
The climate debate requires dispassionate discussion, and we should all be prepared to engage with open minds. MAny of the climate change proponents have been demonized and their work trivialized. Michael Mann, for example, and other scientists who has made significant contributions to our knowledge of climate dynamics, have suffered this fate. Accordingly, it is very difficult to engage in a reasonable conversation, when most of the research concerning climate is relegated to the trash can, even before the debate begins.
Evan Green says:
“Live debates are too short in duration, too limited in depth…” &etc.
Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Face it. potholer is a chicken. Anthony generously gave him what he wanted, but now he wants more, and he wants to set the agenda again. He had his chance. Now it’s time for a real, moderated debate with Lord Monckton. But the chicken won’t debate. And now you’re carrying his water for him. Why? Are you his big brother? Tell the chicken to man up and debate.
. . .
Hugh Pepper:
Quit trying to change the subject. You claimed you had seven citations verifying Mann’s MBH98/99 papers. I say you were fibbing. If not, I callenge you to produce your 7 references.
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:12 pm
….Rocky, I wish I were as sanguine about this as you. It seems clear that The Team can break the laws of the land with impunity. In a world where rationality prevailed, the miscreants at the IPCC, CRU, GISS etc would not be above the law. In the battle for mind-share where it counts — in Congress and Parliaments — they are not losing. This saddens me…
___________________________
It more than saddens me, it frightens me. “….This in turn led to the legalized murder of millions in the death camps of the 20thC.”
From what I have seen truth and the welfare of the people they represent means less than nothing to our representatives in government. They are only in office for Wealth, Fame and Power and could care less if they destroy our countries and economies while attaining them.
People like Lord Monckton are very few and far between. It is only the internal squabbling about power that has saved us from a totalitarian world government thus far not truth.
I just hope that there continues to be no “Honor among Thieves” and they continue to disagree on how to divide the lambs.
Guys, I have another idea. A sort of hybrid blog-live-video debate.
It goes like that: H. states something to a certain issue in an up to 1 minute long video and publishes it on the youtube. M. replies with his video, also up to 1 minute long. Each debater may publish op to 3 videos on the same issue. There could be like 10-20 issues.
This way each debater could give well prepared arguments and at the same time we could enjoy watching them talking.
Greg House,
No. Maybe next time. But potholer wanted to set the agenda, and Anthony gave him what he wanted. In the interest of basic fairness, this time Monckton is entitled to decide the forum.
I’ve never met the Viscount and don’t presume to speak for him. But the one receiving the challenge in a duel [Rule 16] has the choice of weapons, no? Potholer got his way; he was the challenger, but that doesn’t mean he always calls the shots. It’s Monckton’s turn now. But potholer is a chicken. He will not debate his Lord on a level playing field.
Hmm, looks like they could be censoring my posts now. Are censoring, so am posting it here for them to read as it has for some reason accepted my rebuke and link here: http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-20196
Eric Adler March 24, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink | Reply
Myrrh,
In your above rant you said:
“As I said, unless you know real physics you won’t understand me. Try taking my posts to your real science department – ask them what they think of the comic cartoon energy budget …”
Here is what a real science department thinks of Trenberth’s diagram.
oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/weather/weather1.htm
‘The Heat Budget,
source Keihl & Trenberth, J. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78(2): 197-208.
The science department of Texas A&M likes the Trenberth Heat Budget and uses it to instruct its students.
===============
I meant a real science department, where they study to know how to actually make something work – the kind of science department that if they get it wrong in the real world it actually matters.. Do you understand the difference? Applied science, where they know the difference between heat and light, where they know what gravity is, where they know that our atmosphere isn’t empty space with hard dots of the imaginary ideal gas rushing around at great speeds unrestrained by gravity, where they understand convection, where they need to know that gases can separate out..
You’re really not paying attention here to what I’m saying. I think it’s because you don’t know any applied science at all and have no reference point.
“A fool is someone who doesn’t learn from his mistakes”
Quite so.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
That’s your mistake – you haven’t explored the physics for yourself.
Fred – Our bodies are around 20% carbon, the rest mainly water. Every time you breathe in your own body is producing enough carbon dioxide to be around 6% of the air in your lungs, we can’t get enough from the atmosphere, we use 2% and breathe out 4%. Plants also breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, it’s during photosynthesis they breathe in carbon dioxide and use the Sun’s visible light energy to convert to chemical energy, not heat energy, to make sugars. We are Carbon Life forms. Carbon dioxide is our basic food of all life from plants being able to use it to create food for growth and also extract the oxygen to release into the atmosphere.
We need this amount of carbon dioxide in our breathing to transport oxygen efficiently in the blood and more, to keep our ph balance and so on. When we drop to dangerous levels, around 4% in each lungful, we can’t use the oxygen we’ve also breathed in. For example, if someone is in shock and hyperventilating and having difficulty breathing, it isn’t the lack of oxygen that’s creating the problem, it’s the lack of carbon dioxide so the oxygen can’t be used – our bodies immediately try to limit our breathing to stop it being breathed out. The way to deal with it is to breathe into a paper bag to give the carbon dioxide back to your lungs which desperately need it.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE TO YOUR HEALTH
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
At the moment there is a concerted effort by those who have invented this fisics to stop you thinking about it. They like nothing better than you CAGW and AGW’s waste your time arguing about the degree of warming from carbon dioxide – then you don’t think to look behind the curtain, because you don’t know there is a curtain.
If you want an introduction to who is pulling the strings, http://www.real-science.com/
This isn’t about science – this is about taking control of the population. What this science fiction fisics does is dumb down the oik population. Knowledge and those with knowledge have always been the first targets, think book burning, but history probably isn’t your subject either so you might not know that. But a warning here, this has been in place for several decades now and what you’ll find if you look behind the curtain is not a pretty sight.
If you think your neighbour is your equal, then the antidote is to strive to get back your real heritage, Common Law, here’s an introduction: http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
And I’ll leave the discussion with this. If you can’t answer the question I’ve asked, try asking yourself why you can’t find any explanation if the “science is settled”.
How does Carbon Dioxide heat the Earth?
Smokey says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Hugh Pepper:
Quit trying to change the subject. You claimed you had seven citations verifying Mann’s MBH98/99 papers. I say you were fibbing. If not, I callenge you to produce your 7 references.
I amused myself over the past few days Googling “seven citations verifying MBH98/99” and got this:
“Other researchers have successfully implemented our methodology based on the information provided in our articles [see e.g. Zorita, E., F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke,..] (from an e-mail reply to Steve McIntyre) and this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf (from a paper written by — *koff* — Michael Mann.
Two statements, both from Mann, saying that *one* paper written by three researchers had described verifying his results…
Bill Tuttle,
Hugh Pepper has no shame. He makes preposterous statements, then when called on them he hides out for a day or two, then he comes back with more baseless nonsense.
I also note that Hugh Pepper had no response to my point that as the challenged party, Lord Monckton now has the right to pick his weapon of choice. In the past it has always been a formal, moderated debate with a science-based Question. Thus, no ad hominem attacks are allowed.
Monckton has always won his debates based on scientific facts. Therfore, his potential adversaries like potholer chicken out. They are cowards who are afraid to debate him. Basic fairness requires that this time around, it is Monckton’s turn to set the debate agenda, since potholer got to set his own agenda as the original challenger. However, fairness, courage, and honesty are alien to the climate alarmist crowd. If I’m wrong, then let’s have Peter Hadfield go toe to toe with someone who knows his facts backward and forward.
Will Hadfield debate Monckton? He will… if he’s not a chicken.
Smokey you, and your champion, Monckton,are the masters of the ad hominem attacks. This discussion is not about who is “chicken” and is not. It is, as you correctly point out, about truth. Hadfield, Sinclair and Abrahams have calmly shredded Monckton’s assertions without ambiguity. There is really nothing left for the Lord to debate.
Hugh Pepper,
Quit changing the subject. You made the assertion that you had seven (7) references confirming MBH98/99. You have been repeatedly challenged to produce them.
Further, this discussion is most certainly about the cowardice of Monckton’s attackers. They have zero interest in science, because they know what they’re emitting is pseudo-science. Hadfield, Sinclair, Abraham and you all have one thing in common: you are all terrified of debating Monckton in a fair, moderated debate setting. You are all chickens, the lot of you. If not, then let’s have an honest debate. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for any of you to screw up your non-existent courage. Because you are, after all, chickens.