Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[ptif219]

We are cooling showing scientist lied about Global warming. It is time to stop the hype about green energy and do it in a way that will not hurt the poor and middle class. This means that the government needs to get out of the green energy busin sess and let the privates sector do their job. No more playing politics with global warming and green energy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html


There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html), has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/The%20new%20data%20contradicts%20a%20report%20by%2 0the%20BBC%20in%202007,%20claiming%20sea%20ice%20i n%20the%20Arctic%20would%20have%20completely%20dis appeared%20by%202013.).

[Common]

Ive never been convinced of global warming, any evidence for has just as much against.

[Chloe]

Ive never been convinced of global warming, any evidence for has just as much against.

In my personal opinion you don't have to believe in global warming but you should definitely believe in man-made destruction of the planet, its resources, and how we are changing and affecting this planet in negative ways.

[Mister D]

In my personal opinion you don't have to believe in global warming but you should definitely believe in man-made destruction of the planet, its resources, and how we are changing and affecting this planet in negative ways.

That I definitely agree with. Our lifestyles are predicated upon consumption. We have more and more wants (as opposed to needs), it has a cost, and I don't believe it's sustainable.

[Chris]

I'd like to take the position that you cannot change the nature of man, oh, perhaps a little here, a little there, but really not very much, and certainly not by just passing laws. Assuming that true, then what can man do but continue to innovate and adapt his environment to this new and changing climate as he likely has throughout his evolution evolution.

[Chloe]

I'd like to take the position that you cannot change the nature of man, oh, perhaps a little here, a little there, but really not very much, and certainly not by just passing laws. Assuming that true, then what can man do but continue to innovate and adapt his environment to this new and changing climate as he likely has throughout his evolution evolution.

But see the problem is that man innovates and adapts to the environment that it alters, and thus makes it necessary to adapt and change. In all of our efforts to conquer nature we damage it, rape it, strip it, absorb it, poison it, and then at the end of the day we have the unbelievable arrogance to believe that we can put band aids on it while we look for new and innovative ways to continue the status quo. Man's nature will be forced to change one day once man realizes the damage that has been done, but by then it will probably be too late. In a million years the Earth will recover from our time here, but all we are doing is destroying our own future in my opinion. There are definitely ways to counter it and create a more sustainable and respectful way of borrowing from the planet and giving back more than we take from it, but it will take time and probably future pain unfortunately. I know that's a pessimistic way of looking at it but look around, it's hard not to see why sometimes.

[Chris]

But see the problem is that man innovates and adapts to the environment that it alters, and thus makes it necessary to adapt and change. In all of our efforts to conquer nature we damage it, rape it, strip it, absorb it, poison it, and then at the end of the day we have the unbelievable arrogance to believe that we can put band aids on it while we look for new and innovative ways to continue the status quo. Man's nature will be forced to change one day once man realizes the damage that has been done, but by then it will probably be too late. In a million years the Earth will recover from our time here, but all we are doing is destroying our own future in my opinion. There are definitely ways to counter it and create a more sustainable and respectful way of borrowing from the planet and giving back more than we take from it, but it will take time and probably future pain unfortunately. I know that's a pessimistic way of looking at it but look around, it's hard not to see why sometimes.

I wish there were such ways but I'm not so optimistic. I admire your spirit. Maybe earth will recover after we're long gone.

[ptif219]

In my personal opinion you don't have to believe in global warming but you should definitely believe in man-made destruction of the planet, its resources, and how we are changing and affecting this planet in negative ways.


We can fix that without causing financial problems for the poor and middleclass which is what Obama is doing

[Agravan]

But see the problem is that man innovates and adapts to the environment that it alters, and thus makes it necessary to adapt and change. In all of our efforts to conquer nature we damage it, rape it, strip it, absorb it, poison it, and then at the end of the day we have the unbelievable arrogance to believe that we can put band aids on it while we look for new and innovative ways to continue the status quo. Man's nature will be forced to change one day once man realizes the damage that has been done, but by then it will probably be too late. In a million years the Earth will recover from our time here, but all we are doing is destroying our own future in my opinion. There are definitely ways to counter it and create a more sustainable and respectful way of borrowing from the planet and giving back more than we take from it, but it will take time and probably future pain unfortunately. I know that's a pessimistic way of looking at it but look around, it's hard not to see why sometimes.

Do you want man to survive? Or would you rather we die out so that the planet can survive?

[Dangermouse]

Actually we're still warming. Last year's cover was such a record low, this increase doesn't reach up to the average level of ice cover, let alone the thickness.

[Chloe]

Do you want man to survive? Or would you rather we die out so that the planet can survive?

I don't want to see the human species wiped out or anything like that but it's hard to deny that the human species is one of the most damaging living beings to ever live on this planet. What I want is for us as a whole to recognize how we affect life and make true efforts to change our behavior in order to share this planet with all other life. We take and destroy far more than we give back, and that is not sustainable for our species and probably millions of other species that are indirectly and directly affected by us.

[roadmaster]

I don't want to see the human species wiped out or anything like that but it's hard to deny that the human species is one of the most damaging living beings to ever live on this planet. What I want is for us as a whole to recognize how we affect life and make true efforts to change our behavior in order to share this planet with all other life. We take and destroy far more than we give back, and that is not sustainable for our species and probably millions of other species that are indirectly and directly affected by us. I have to agree with you on that one. Not a environmentalist but when I was young we could drink out of streams and not get sick. Wouldn't try it now. Sometimes I think they hurt more than help tho. Like bringing fire ants over that have taken over the south that were not around when I was young, or putting animals not from NC or SC here and end up wiping out what we do have.

[Peter1469]

I don't want to see the human species wiped out or anything like that but it's hard to deny that the human species is one of the most damaging living beings to ever live on this planet. What I want is for us as a whole to recognize how we affect life and make true efforts to change our behavior in order to share this planet with all other life. We take and destroy far more than we give back, and that is not sustainable for our species and probably millions of other species that are indirectly and directly affected by us.

There is a theory that we have no definite proof of advanced civilization out there, because as a civilization becomes advanced enough it destroys itself.

[Chloe]

There is a theory that we have no definite proof of advanced civilization out there, because as a civilization becomes advanced enough it destroys itself.

I could see that

[bobgnote]

Actually we're still warming. Last year's cover was such a record low, this increase doesn't reach up to the average level of ice cover, let alone the thickness.

Thank you.

CO2 is leading temps AND increases, in atmospheric concentration, of H2O and CH4, which, with human manufactured GHGs are leading an inevitable temperature increase, which will finish off a load of perennial ice, which will stabilize, after out-gassing a bunch more CO2 and CH4, volcanoes will go off, and we'll be loaded up, with more CO2, NO2, and SO2, while any remaining ice will get sooted.

The water will acidify.

The extinction rate is already off the hook, which it ALWAYS is, when CO2 jumps. Organisms can't handle it. There is NO WAY half will survive.

All are doomed. Let the tardy feel gloom or some other dopey feeling, since hey! If you can't think, feelings prove you're still alive, if barely.

[ptif219]

Thank you.

CO2 is leading temps AND increases, in atmospheric concentration, of H2O and CH4, which, with human manufactured GHGs are leading an inevitable temperature increase, which will finish off a load of perennial ice, which will stabilize, after out-gassing a bunch more CO2 and CH4, volcanoes will go off, and we'll be loaded up, with more CO2, NO2, and SO2, while any remaining ice will get sooted.

The water will acidify.

The extinction rate is already off the hook, which it ALWAYS is, when CO2 jumps. Organisms can't handle it. There is NO WAY half will survive.

All are doomed. Let the tardy feel gloom or some other dopey feeling, since hey! If you can't think, feelings prove you're still alive, if barely.

We are not warming because of the sun

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html


The sun's current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say. Our star is now at "solar maximum (http://www.space.com/21937-sun-solar-weather-peak-is-weak.html)," the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.
"None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learnhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html#) something," Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. [Solar Max: Amazing Sun Storm Photos of 2013 (http://www.space.com/20621-solar-maximum-sun-storm-photos-2013.html)]



The learninghttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html#) has already begun. For example, scientists think they know why the solar storms (http://www.space.com/12047-solar-flares-sun-storms-space-weather-infographic.html) that have erupted during Solar Cycle 24 have caused relatively few problems here on Earth.
The sun (http://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html) often blasts huge clouds of superheated particles into space, in explosions known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Powerful CMEs that hit Earth squarely can trigger geomagnetic storms, which in turn can disrupt radio communications, GPS signals and power grids.
But such effects have rarely been seen during Solar Cycle 24, even though the total number of CMEs hasn't dropped off much, if at all. The explanation, researchers said, lies in the reduced pressure currently present in the heliosphere, the enormous bubble of charged particles and magnetic fields that the sun puffs out around itself.
This lower pressure has allowed CMEs to expand greatly as they cruise through space, said Nat Gopalswamy of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Indeed, Solar Cycle 24 CMEs are, on average, 38 percent bigger than those measured during the last cycle — a difference with real consequences for folks here on Earth.
"When the CMEs expand more, the magnetic field inside the CMEs has lower strength," Gopalswamy said. "So when you have lower-strength magnetic fields, then they cause milder geomagnetic storms."

[bobgnote]

We are not warming because of the sun

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html

Look. Your article doesn't draw that conclusion. It just examines cyclic radiance issues.

Do you actually read anything, to which you link?

I'm still skeptical, about whether a thousand monkeys, with keyboards, could actually come up, with all the great books . . . no way!

One of 'em would get a banana, and there'd be some kind of monkey-crap toss, and there would go the keyboards, into the fray.

[bobgnote]

Anyway, we are warming, when, for several reasons, we should be cooling, but since greenhouse gasses are proliferating, the perennial ice will melt, until equilibrium is reached, whereupon we will warm the heck up, and even with the trade currents failing and the neutral ENSO jet blowing off canes, the eastern US will eat another thousand mile wide storm, and the gomers will have to hit the road.

Sorry about your luck, out there . . .

[Contrails]

We are not warming because of the sun

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html
Solar activity has been decreasing since 1960 and yet global surface temperature continues to rise. Why is that?

http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/sunspot_num_graph_big.jpg

[ptif219]

Look. Your article doesn't draw that conclusion. It just examines cyclic radiance issues.

Do you actually read anything, to which you link?

I'm still skeptical, about whether a thousand monkeys, with keyboards, could actually come up, with all the great books . . . no way!

One of 'em would get a banana, and there'd be some kind of monkey-crap toss, and there would go the keyboards, into the fray.

So you only accept science that agrees with tour view

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/


If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.
A Swedish study (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php) found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.
The study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12003/abstract), by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

[ptif219]

Anyway, we are warming, when, for several reasons, we should be cooling, but since greenhouse gasses are proliferating, the perennial ice will melt, until equilibrium is reached, whereupon we will warm the heck up, and even with the trade currents failing and the neutral ENSO jet blowing off canes, the eastern US will eat another thousand mile wide storm, and the gomers will have to hit the road.

Sorry about your luck, out there . . .

We are not warming. We are breaking cold records. The earth has not warmed for 17 years

[ptif219]

Solar activity has been decreasing since 1960 and yet global surface temperature continues to rise. Why is that?

http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/sunspot_num_graph_big.jpg

More BS graphs and no link. I will stick with my sources
Check this link and look at the graph it seems a bit different than yours

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/leif-svalgaard-at-agu-on-the-current-solar-cycle-none-of-us-alive-have-ever-seen-such-a-weak-cycle/

[Dangermouse]

Watts lies. That's why.

[Contrails]

So you only accept science that agrees with tour view
You mean like presenting a study of trees in the Scandes mountains as representative of global temperatures?

[Contrails]

More BS graphs and no link. I will stick with my sources
Check this link and look at the graph it seems a bit different than yours

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/leif-svalgaard-at-agu-on-the-current-solar-cycle-none-of-us-alive-have-ever-seen-such-a-weak-cycle/

Other than the time scale, I don't see any difference. Google "solar activity last 400 years" and tell me I'm wrong.

[ptif219]

Watts lies. That's why.

Show the lie. Obama lies and you still believe him. I don't

[ptif219]

You mean like presenting a study of trees in the Scandes mountains as representative of global temperatures?

Were they scientists?

[ptif219]

Other than the time scale, I don't see any difference. Google "solar activity last 400 years" and tell me I'm wrong.

Read the article it differs from what you say

[bobgnote]

20:
So you only accept science that agrees with tour view

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

I "only accept science" was a correct statement, so put down a period. Then type in, how I agree, with science, and science agrees, with me.

But science does not agree, with YOU.

Moreover, SO WHAT, if the Roman Warm Period was warmer, than today, since that time was at the peak, of the current interglacial period?

Are you the champion, of SO WHAT and DUH WHAT, both? Give us your secret . . . and keep an SUV full of cheese, for the journey, when a cane chases you out of your hovel.

We should be cooling, no poofters.

We aren't cooling. The perennial ice is melting. There's more GHGs than ever. These lead temp increases, EVERY TIME GHGs GO UP, and we get a mass extinction event, EVERY TIME CO2 MAKES A FAST RISE.

Today's rise is CO2 is the fastest, EVER. So since CO2 LEADS TEMPS, the melts are cooling the temp readings, doinkty-doinkty-doo, and THE TEMPS ARE YET TO FOLLOW, deedle-deedly-dee! Make a little song, and sing it, and maybe you can understand . . .

Keep an SUV, with a lot of cheese and crackers, on-board. Don't let the water in there, when the splashing heads your way.

You can't deflect Force 5 or Class 5 or anything Big 5. But I guess sports left you behind, long ago.

[Contrails]

Were they scientists?
Unlike the people who constantly misinterpret what the paper says.


Read the article it differs from what you say
Saying that solar activity is the weakest in 100 years doesn't differ from my statement that it's been declining since 1960. In fact, the following graph from the article shows exactly the same thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hathaway_ssn_dec2013.png?w=640&h=183

So once again, how is the sun responsible when solar activity has been declining during most of the warming?

[bobgnote]

21:
We are not warming. We are breaking cold records. The earth has not warmed for 17 years

Readings prove you waste bandwidth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm


For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due toheat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

Climate Myth...


It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml))

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land andatmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's totalheat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heatcontent from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using thesurface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

Of course, since you only post back-to-front-wiping Watt, to a 't,' you don't ever learn anything.

Who pays YOU, to post crap, with redundant rwnj-pidgin blurts?

No poofters . . .

[ptif219]

20:

I "only accept science" was a correct statement, so put down a period. Then type in, how I agree, with science, and science agrees, with me.

But science does not agree, with YOU.

Moreover, SO WHAT, if the Roman Warm Period was warmer, than today, since that time was at the peak, of the current interglacial period?

Are you the champion, of SO WHAT and DUH WHAT, both? Give us your secret . . . and keep an SUV full of cheese, for the journey, when a cane chases you out of your hovel.

We should be cooling, no poofters.

We aren't cooling. The perennial ice is melting. There's more GHGs than ever. These lead temp increases, EVERY TIME GHGs GO UP, and we get a mass extinction event, EVERY TIME CO2 MAKES A FAST RISE.

Today's rise is CO2 is the fastest, EVER. So since CO2 LEADS TEMPS, the melts are cooling the temp readings, doinkty-doinkty-doo, and THE TEMPS ARE YET TO FOLLOW, deedle-deedly-dee! Make a little song, and sing it, and maybe you can understand . . .

Keep an SUV, with a lot of cheese and crackers, on-board. Don't let the water in there, when the splashing heads your way.

You can't deflect Force 5 or Class 5 or anything Big 5. But I guess sports left you behind, long ago.

Science does agree with me Scientists are trying to make new false excuses to justify the Global warming lies

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html

[ptif219]

Unlike the people who constantly misinterpret what the paper says.


Saying that solar activity is the weakest in 100 years doesn't differ from my statement that it's been declining since 1960. In fact, the following graph from the article shows exactly the same thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hathaway_ssn_dec2013.png?w=640&h=183

So once again, how is the sun responsible when solar activity has been declining during most of the warming?

It has not warmed in 17 years

[ptif219]

21:

Readings prove you waste bandwidth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

Of course, since you only post back-to-front-wiping Watt, to a 't,' you don't ever learn anything.

Who pays YOU, to post crap, with redundant rwnj-pidgin blurts?

No poofters . . .

You are wrong even the IPCC admits it has not warmed

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

[Contrails]

Science does agree with me Scientists are trying to make new false excuses to justify the Global warming lies

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html


It has not warmed in 17 years

You have a very strange understanding of just what science is and what it says.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract

[bobgnote]

32:
Science does agree with me Scientists are trying to make new false excuses to justify the Global warming lies

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html


By MARK LANDSBAUM (http://www.ocregister.com/reporter-profile/mark-1248-landsbaum)/ Register columnistRecall global warming hysteria’s halcyon days? Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.



http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/article/mxroz9-b781232936z.120131213144713000gie1hebdj.1.jpg

MCT ILLUSTRATION


Of course, that doesn’t mesh with what happened. This past October, the UK Express headlined, “Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November.”
By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.


We shouldn’t pick on Great Britain. There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.







Ahem. This idiotic rant is from THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, which cherry-picked some chickens, to belittle. This douche Mark is a columnist, as in he takes the fifth, always, but I guess when you finally put up some actual sciencey stuff, it doesn't say what YOU say it says or it disagrees with you, so you have to post steaming horseshit.

Your media is ALWAYS crappy, or you link to something, which doesn't agree with your rwnj-pidgin blurts.

34:
You are wrong even the IPCC admits it has not warmed

http ://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/)


Excuuuuuse me, sonny, but Anthony Watt's site sucks, and here is what we find, at your link:


Guest post by Christopher Monckton of BrenchleyFollowing my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

Chrissy Monckton is a bug-eyed geek, who used to go around, calling himself "Lord" Monckton. He has no science degrees or competence.

Like Anthony Watt, he gets Koch Bro money. Say, how about that thumb you are sitting on? I bet you have to wash that, now and then . . .

We've been warming, since the instrument record AND since 1998, including many record surface temps, with lots of climate change phenomena AND total climate media warming, like my post 31 shows.

You posted nothing sciencey or which replies, to post 31. Does your thumb get streaky striations, from your sciencey studies, of spin physics?

[bobgnote]

This Brit-git Monckton really is a bug-eyed turdburglar, worth review, here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm


Climate Misinformer: Christopher MoncktonChristopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions.
[/URL]
For a comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check out [URL="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/"]this presentation by Professor John Abraham (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf). Abraham has compiled many examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites.

And hey, old bug-eyes sucks! He's about as welcome, here, as HIV . . .

No poofters, for me!:lipsrsealed:

[bobgnote]

Don't go out with this, sis:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/2/27/Monckton.jpg/477px-Monckton.jpg

Here's a SOURCEWATCH link, re this sleaze:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton


Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/AGW_denier), who has had articles published in The Guardian (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Guardian) and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter[1] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton#cite_note-CP2008-07-0) of theAmerican Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions)[1] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton#cite_note-CP2008-07-0) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords.[2] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton#cite_note-Monck-1), a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.

I guess birds of a feather flock, together! Compulsive LIARS like to link, to this other compulsive liar, so we can read more lying.

No way, eh?

[ptif219]

You have a very strange understanding of just what science is and what it says.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract

You mean I don't agree with your government scientist manipulated data.

[ptif219]

32:









Ahem. This idiotic rant is from THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, which cherry-picked some chickens, to belittle. This douche Mark is a columnist, as in he takes the fifth, always, but I guess when you finally put up some actual sciencey stuff, it doesn't say what YOU say it says or it disagrees with you, so you have to post steaming horseshit.

Your media is ALWAYS crappy, or you link to something, which doesn't agree with your rwnj-pidgin blurts.

34:


Excuuuuuse me, sonny, but Anthony Watt's site sucks, and here is what we find, at your link:



Chrissy Monckton is a bug-eyed geek, who used to go around, calling himself "Lord" Monckton. He has no science degrees or competence.

Like Anthony Watt, he gets Koch Bro money. Say, how about that thumb you are sitting on? I bet you have to wash that, now and then . . .

We've been warming, since the instrument record AND since 1998, including many record surface temps, with lots of climate change phenomena AND total climate media warming, like my post 31 shows.

You posted nothing sciencey or which replies, to post 31. Does your thumb get streaky striations, from your sciencey studies, of spin physics?

So only the lies of the global warming propagandists matter to you. You do not want the truth

[bobgnote]

So only the lies of the global warming propagandists matter to you. You do not want the truthOK. Here's some truth:http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201106/r792471_6906743.jpgHere's Chris, mooning, while one Koch brother slams him . . . and now, for both Kochs, simultaneously:http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/06/30/1226084/863824-pn-lord-monckton-new.jpgEs verdad, dude.You revel, in gross deception, to predictable ends.

[Contrails]

You mean I don't agree with your government scientist manipulated data.


So only the lies of the global warming propagandists matter to you. You do not want the truth

Unsubstantiated claims like this don't help your credibility.

[bobgnote]

I have yet to see one post, referring one, actual, credible "SCIENTIST," who refutes any of global warming, climate change, or human complicity.NOT ONE POST HAS SUCCEEDED, at referral, to any such science or scientists. Go fish, conservaderps.

[ptif219]

We are not warming

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/

[Contrails]

We are not warming

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/

Do you know how much of the Earth's surface the US represents? Here's a picture to help you.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/anomalies.png

[GrassrootsConservative]

Do you know how much of the Earth's surface the US represents? Here's a picture to help you.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/anomalies.png

And the second link? Look at that one now.

[Contrails]

And the second link? Look at that one now.

Just more of the same. The first one even tries to use a study of tree ring data from northern Sweden to represent global temperature. Number three brags about a 50% recovery as if being only the 6th lowest sea ice minimum on record is a good thing. How about producing a climate model of the last century that doesn't involve rising atmospheric CO2?

[bobgnote]

We are not warming

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/

. . . is getting back together; NO POOFTERZ, eh?

Whattup with "wordpress" blogging and "The Daily Caller?"

Is that YOUR idea, of scientific media sources?

Look, just recite THE LUMBERJACK SONG, and be done with it; no poofters . . .