Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum

I hadn’t heard about the possibility of a UVa appointment. Interesting. One is inclined to wonder whether this isn’t a part of a greater ’email ownership’ gambit….. ;-D. /sarc

dave turner says: “As soon as i mention The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Im vilified.”
Dave, it is very simple. Anthony is very careful to avoid rampant discussions of religion, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Minor Diety, which falls under discussion of religion. Now, some people believe The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also the creator of all things good and tasty to eat, which implies creationism, which is part of the religious discussions we aren’t supposed to have. You can talk about anything else that has some bearing on the current discussion, but just don’t bring in these silly religious arguments. And don’t even bring up the fact that Newton wrote just as many religious treatises as he did scientific ones, as that is simply irrelevant (as is my mention of it).
And, moderators, please feel free to delete this if it is too far out-of-line.

To Monty, April 16th 8:12
First, you know nothing of science when you insult Soon and Baliunas for REALLY bad science. REALLY REALLY bad science is idiotic predictions of warming coming out from the likes of Hansen. None of his predictions since 1988 have come true or are likely to come true. Second, it is interesting that you associate non-ISI related journals with publishing material skeptical of AGW. It is an admission that AGW advocates have control of the ISI journal selection process. This is of course not really news since Climategate exposed their techniques of suppressing opposing views and getting recalcitrant editors fired. And yes, papers like those of Willis Eschenbach are of equal and in many cases higher quality than most of the “peer-reviewed” stuff that appears in your controlled literature. Here is an example. Nature ClimateChange for October 2011 has an article entitled “Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change.” From the abstract we read: “…Many species already exhibit smaller sizes as a result of of climate change and many others are likely to shrink in response to continued climate change… This could negatively impact both crop plants and protein sources such as fish that are important for human nutrition…” This is demonstrably abject nonsense, and if I had been the reviewer it would not have seen the light of day. There are many other articles of similar low quality. Unfortunately these days peer review is buddy review and articles the editors favor just get waved through. Critical thinking is what you lack, Monty, when you put a blanket approval on trash like that.

Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:12 am
Is that a “Full Monty”???

Monty April 16th 12:16 p.m.
Missed your second post. Relying on the “likes of” Monckton, Plimer, Ball, etc. is not damaging to the skeptical argument but insulting of the people referred to. What I said before applies here too – you badly need to develop critical thinking. That means actually reading their work, not rejecting it on superficial characteristics because you are intellectually lazy. There is no such thing as training in climate science – there is just climate science practiced by scientists who have chosen to study it in addition to what they are trained to do. In my research career I found that scientific research very often requires you to study up on knowledge that was not in your textbook or part of your curriculum. After an interruption of many years and retirement I found myself doing climate science that required me to acquire new knowledge that did not even exist when I went to college. I found it not so different from other research I had been involved in. Ask any working scientist and you will find that their experience is similar. What it all boils down to is this: the climate science estalishment tells us is that a warming Armageddon is on the way, caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2, if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. I have personally studied the relevant data and can tell you that this thing called carbon dioxide greenhouse effect does not even exist. To start off, there is no period of warming within the last one hundred years that can be identified as greenhouse warming. The warming in the twentieth century was not uniform but occurred in two instalments. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and ended in 1940. We know that carbon dioxide was slowly increasing and did not surge when the warming started. Hence, greenhouse warming as a cause is ruled out by the laws of physics. Bjørn Lomborg thinks it has a solar origin and I agree with him. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies while carbon dioxide kept steadily increasing. No satisfactory explanation exists why this carbon dioxide increase did not lead to warming during that thirty year period. Satellite temperature data show that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties either until a giant super El Nino arrived in 1998. It carried so much warm water across the ocean that it caused the global temperature to rise by a third of a degree Celsius in only four years. This was the second instalment of twentieth century warming and there was none after that. This means no greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. I did not mention Arctic warming but this one unfortunately for you guys is not greenhouse warming either, being caused by Atlantic currents that carry warm Gulf stream water into the Arctic. So where did that famous greenhouse effect disappear? Ferenc Miskolczi has the answer. Using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs had not changed in 61 years. During that same period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to the air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and overrides any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides climate models that use carbon dioxide greenhouse effect to predict warming. Carbon dioxide does not cause warming even if you double it, hence the vaunted sensitivity to doubling is exactly zero. Time to start dismantling irrational laws designed to change the climate.

Wayne Delbeke says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Is that a “Full Monty”???
More like a “full of himself” Monty…

Jean Parisot says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:54 am
A suggestion, until Mann issues the retractions and corrections for the upside down tiljander data, please post his photo upside down.
—
BRILLIANT!

What is the relevance of the picture of the walrus?… oh wait, sorry. carry on.

Hi Monty,
Strictly speaking, Arno Arrak is correct. Yes, if you double the amount of CO2 you will get approximately one degree of temperature rise – something, by the way, that I have great difficulty losing any sleep over. History teaches us that mankind always prospered when the world was a bit warmer.
But the ‘greenhouse’ effect does not exist, because CO2 warming has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air, and not by trapping IR radiation. The AGW theory is clearly wrong and most of the 20th century warming that we enjoyed was almost certainly natural, just as it was during the Medieval period. It’s appropriate that the creators of the deeply flawed theory couldn’t even get the name wright.
.
Just a friendly suggestion: if you think Willis or any of the others are wrong, please say exactly why and I’m sure Willis would be happy to enter into a constructive discussion. But of course that’s a bit unlikely. You people like to say that the ‘debate is over’, but what you’re really saying is that you are terrified of real debate. That’s because you usually lose, the Oxford Union debate being a perfect example. You’re happy to call people like Christopher Monckton names. If Monckton and co are so utterly wrong, please explain why Monckton and his team won both the Oxford Union debate and the vote.
Chris

How droll this troll. He’s from a time-warp, about five years ago. The talking points expose him.
=================