As you mention potholer54, myths take many days or months to debunk as it is easy just to open one's mouth and claim anything you want.Is the only answer to spend a lot of time debunking, or is there someway of stopping some of the nonsense?
‘stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London…Between 2007 and 2010, David Breashears retraced the steps of early photographic pioneers such as Major E O Wheeler, George Mallory and Vittorio Sella - to try to re-take their views of breathtaking glacial vistas’
@LillabetteHane =I was interested in how you knew how to spell "Bhat's" name= I'm not sure I follow this question at all. I had never heard of Prof Bhat until Monckton mentioned him, both in his presentations and in his e-mail to me. Bhat's name is clearly spelled out in both.
@mukmakin =You state the sun was cooler and is now warmer and getting hotter in this video, but you don't put this as a facter in the earth heating, why?= Because solar irradiance has been flat since the 1950s. Climatologists conclude that the sun therefore cannot be responsible for most of the warming over the last 35 years. You are confusing this with the increase in irradiance over the phanerozoic, which encompasses 500 million years.
@potholer54 and @mukmakin Yes, there are many cycles and oppositely-directed mini-trends within larger trends within... etc, etc... within the large trend mentioned in the video. My understanding is that CO2 not only explains the long term increasing trend but also the short term trends, including the current very short term trend of a few decades where solar irradiance has been neutral to weaker. See the Wikipedia article Solar_variation.
@CrystalStarr04 The byproduct of nuclear power is not CO2... so to answer your question, humans have no effect on CO2 levels due to Nuclear Power Plant operations. The main ways in which humans increase greenhouse gas levels is through the burning of fossil fuels and agriculture.
Also, instead of asking on youtube your questions, potholer has various other videos on climate change w/ sources for both research and data, so instead of asking other people to do it for you, maybe do it yourself?
@potholer54 You wouldn't happen to be willing to give up the full emails of your correspondence with Monckton would you? (or have simply missed them?) I'm kinda interested in reading his full emails.
@Z4RUM4N =You wouldn't happen to be willing to give up the full emails of your correspondence with Monckton would you?= I've put them on the videos. Just use the pause button to read them. If you have trouble reading anything, let me know and I'll send you a copy. But no good asking me questions in the body of a video forum. I have dozens of videos on my channel and I can't monitor every message on every forum. You're lucky I caught this one.
@rpm303 I think he just likes all the attention he gets from this. He probably found out that if he does this lots and lots of people will listen to him and even worship him. He probably just really really loves the attention, and so doesn't care about anything else.
@rpm303 He must be working for big companies or the republicans or something I think, probably getting payed very well for brainwashing his audiences.
@rpm303 I think Monckton is feeling a little useless in his older age so why not take up a project that pays well and keeps his ego afloat. The fact that he doesn't shut up about his qualifications - albeit irrelevant to the topic at hand - shows a man clutching at straws. His love of the classics extends to classical methods of science. In doing so he ignores the complexities of modern research and nuance.
Must be Lord Monckton and 6 guys from the Alex "we've always been right" Jones show (Infowars / Prisonplanet).
I feel sorry for Alex. First he went with this Sgt. Petersburg astronomer who claimed the WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM IS WARMING because of the Sun. For long time Alex was shouting that the moons of Saturn are melting (heh). Then Alex turned around and came into conclusion that actually EARTH IS COOLING, now influenced with Monckton.
Fortunately, looking at the viewership statistics, the rate at which "ignorant fucks" are disliking the video has declined to roughly 1 every second month ...though without further information it is impossible to say whether this is because they've stopped coming here to be pwned or because their heads have been forcibly removed from their 'behinds'...alas, my money would be on the latter.
Wow, This guy (munckton) is a total wanker. I have noticed a correlation between men that need to have titles or letters after their name. I could use these, I have a higher education. I also hope to have and display some humility.
Isn't it weird the stuff that randomly comes out of ones mouth sometimes? Do you know where you got the "earthquakes" from? I ask only out of curiosity, I saw the correction, obviously. I just wonder what you were thinking about that made you say it.
This is fast becoming a series on how to hustle. I'm impressed. He'll say 'be skeptical and don't take things on blind faith' and then do the exact opposite, and his audience is wrong-footed because they already dismissed him from doing the opposite to what he recommended. 'Never admit your're wrong, rephrase instead' also like a maxim a hustler (or politician?) will use. 'Blind em with science (or rather what looks scientific)'... brilliant hustle, intentional or not. Hail the aristocracy!
bahahaha, this was fantasic! Especially towards the end with that e-mail exchange. It's about time somebody owned that monckton, I hope he gets to see these. These videos are very well done, and thorough. good debunking.
Beyond the science, I think it's hilarious that Monkton quite obviously expects a laugh from the audience when he says "...since the days of the Raj, don't you know." His shuffling clearly indicates his joke didn't quite go over as well as it did when he performed it in front of a mirror.
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
Within your description/question you have made incorrect assumptions and subsequent conclusions. To clarify your bb interpretation, lets assume a 1 m2 surface area with uniform temperature distribution within your "simplified" model.
"When the mirror is put in place, the total power radiated to infinity by the black body will still equal that supplied by the spot light"
The radiated power per m2 does in fact remain the same. Not because the bb temperature increase/decreases via re-radiated lw from the mirror or the removal thereof. Rather, the area of radiation is reduce from 1 m2 to 1 m2 less the area of mirror...thus the intensity is the same.
@SkepticalRealist (first post) "The radiated power.. does in fact remain the same.... the area of radiation is reduce.. to 1 m2 less the area of mirror => the intensity is the same"
I think you're getting very confused here. Firstly, it's more relevant to think about radiation per unit solid angle than per unit area of the surface in this example, but your logic's dubious even if we gloss over that. What do you think "intensity" means in this context?
@SkepticalRealist (second post) The total power leaving the surface going to infinity is the same with and without the mirror right? However, the same amount of power gets radiated through a smaller solid angle when the mirror is there, so the amount of power per solid angle must increase. This is commonly referred to as "Radiant intensity". It's a very simple point, which you appear to completely misunderstand. Do your homework before playing the "i know physics, you don't" card!
@Chronosaur "- however, the radiant intensity must increase when the mirror's there
Yes?"
NO!!
The radiant intensity does NOT increase! Got it, does not. Two reason: Reflected IR does not increase the emission spectra of the bb surface. And because no LW increase, any difference you view is as result change in your view angle.
If you're radiation per unit solid angle shows I'm wrong, prove it...run the numbers. Don't forget radius = infinity.
You said:
This is commonly referred to as "Radiant intensity". It's a very simple point, which you appear to completely misunderstand. Do your homework before playing the "i know physics, you don't" card!
Your tushery recitation of radiative physics is undoubtedly a consequence of imprudent use of Wiki.
How did Moncton ever become a speaker on global warming in the first place? He has no qualifications and the little qualifications he claims are apparently false. He has no science degree, he has no research experience, and has never worked as a climate scientist. I am just as qualified to speak on the subject as he is, but I know my own limitations and know that I won't understand the research properly.
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
@SkepticalRealist For some reason you disagree that the radiation leaving the black body will now have greater intensity per unit solid angle, even though you agreed that the black body would look brighter. This is a contradiction. Do you not agree? Or are you so confused that you don't see this?
If we accept that it does look brighter though, we can agree that there is only one way it can do this, seeing as it's a BB, no? Ie it gets hotter
BB or not, your next statement is not accurate "It now has to radiate more per unit solid angle for the fluxes to balance, as the mirror's in the way."
The surface does NOT have to radiate more. From where does the more come?
"How exactly do you think it does that without getting hotter, given that it's perfectly black? How?"
Because the surface is NOT radiating MORE the surface is not getting warmer.
- When the mirror is put in place, the total power radiated to infinity by the black body will still equal that supplied by the spot light
- This implies that the black body has to look brighter when the mirror's not in the way. This is because, looking in from infinity, some angles are occluded by the mirror, and it still has to radiate the same total amount of power as it did without the mirror.
@potholer54 Not to be confused with the 11 year solar cycle which occurs on top of this slow increase. (The 11 year solar cycle is perceptible in the temperature record).
Sorry I though you were referencing thread regarding Kirchhoff cavity experiment...which does lead to Planks equation. By the way, Kirchhoff cavity experiment demonstrates why the spot will not get brighter.
Re-redation can't increase temperature/luminosity of the surface. To do so requires an frequency/energy increase. These are stepped transition...so increases are not cumulative of lower energies but rather a whole step requiring higher energies.
@SkepticalRealist You still haven't answered the question! This is, what, the fifth time?
A spotlight shines on a perfectly black surface. Then, a mirror is put in place to reflect the radiated light/heat back onto the light spot. It now has to radiate more per unit solid angle for the fluxes to balance, as the mirror's in the way. How exactly do you think it does that without getting hotter, given that it's perfectly black? How?
Don't ramble about photons - tell me what you think happens!
Aren't the scientists also cherry-picking? We are in an interglacial and it has been warming for over 15,000 years. This is explained by orbital mechanics and not atmospheric modeling.
Climate scientists need to simplify their research for the average person. Until then, Monckton reigns supreme.
@jasesuper If you actually read the science, rather than just the media reports, you'll find that scientists are always clear about what their science does and doesn't say. Look at the IPCC 2007 Working Group 1 document, and you'll find hundreds of pages describing what we know of natural climate variations from the Little Ice Age to the beginning of the planet.
Meanwhile, Monckton lies.
Scientists need to simplify their message, but then they get accused of cherry-picking.
@541iceman I can find more information about the end of the current interglacial on skeptic sites than I can on the IPCC site. All of the IPCC 2007 WG1 info regarding orbital forcing seems to lead to some yadda about CO2.
Monckton is seen as someone helping to save us from overburdening energy taxation. Many of us believe the science is not really as 'settled' as some claim - and still needs more research (on both sides).
@jasesuper Monckton is entitled to argue for no "overburdening energy taxation": I would agree that the best balanced approach to AGW is not yet sorted out. However, he is *not* entitled to make his point by lying about the science, which is clearly what he does, even after he has been corrected.
@541iceman I have tried to get my information from science. All I have been left with are some quotes, from scientific papers, suggesting the glacial/interglacial periods, in respect to Milankovitch cycles (orbit mechanics), are not well understood. They don't know when the Holocene (warm period) will end. That leads someone like me to conclude that climate change is not completely understood.
@jasesuper The IPCC provides a short section on that (section 6.4.1.8, pp. 453-454). Based on Milankovich only, the correct orbital conditions for the onset of the next ice age will be about another 30,000 years. The section cites various papers that you could follow up on.
For sure, climate is not completely understood. We need to know more: agreed. But we know more than the "skeptic" community lets on.
@jasesuper As for "end of the ice age"; the IPCC makes the point that positive feedbacks are required to get enough warming from relatively weak solar radiation changes, most of which have to do with hemispheric and seasonal changes rather than global net insolation.
The IPCC WG1 report has 20 pages on what is known about ice age cycles. If that's not enough, follow up on the cited references.
@jasesuper No. The average person should grow a brain and get up to the level of the scientist, not the other way around. And, if they don't have the time or energy to do that, then they shouldn't be dictating laws and regulations that make it a crime to fight terrorists like the coal industry who continue to destroy the planet and are a threat to the nation and to humanity.
@eric144144 Hehe, what do liberal and conservative ideologies have to do with facts? You don't need to believe in science facts - that's why they are called FACTS. Go to conservapedia and bath in your ignorance there - that page has an abundance of it (ignorance. Not facts).
They do in Yankland. The yanks have some of the lowest state educational standards in the developed world. Conservapedia is for yanks. Yanks have think tanks. That's how you get conservatism. Bush would only exist in yankland. Obama is dumber than Bush. Yanks. Some of them are very clever.
Yes, but that has been cherry picked like everything else in climate 'science'.
Even +0.12 C/decade would not require any action on CO2. The other point is that it has been warming since about 1650 in Britain. As for the rest of the world, no one really has a clue. All we have is cherry picked and spun proxy data from politically motivated technicians.
That isn't a a partisan point of view, it's the simple truth The surface temperatures over the oceans in the past is an unknown quantity
@eric144144 Let's see: you start by misrepresenting what Phil Jones said in the BBC interview. When you can't fight that any more, you move on to "cherry picked". However ... Jones himself did *not* cherry pick data: he was asked by the interviewer to comment on specific time intervals. These intervals were chosen precisely because they are what denialists had previously "cherry picked".
So far, we have clear evidence that Monckton is a liar and fraud; and Phil Jones answers questions precisely in a geeky science way. I know who I'd rather trust.
Jones' answers clearly show there is nothing exceptional about current temperatures (since the 1990s). Even if you are stupid enough to believe the concocted temperature record. Monckton is an unsupported amateur and a nut job. He would be expected to make some mistakes.
@eric144144 You didn't misrepresent anything? Fill in the dots in the following sentence. "Based on Phil Jones' answer in the BBC interview, the trend in global T from 1995 to 2009 lies in range ... to ... C/decade, with a 95% likelihood, and has a mean value of ... C/decade."
The answer is *not* "It didn't warm from 1995 to 2009."
@eric144144 I suggest you actually read the BBC interview with Phil Jones, in full, spend some time understanding it, and then work out why your primary sources misrepresented what he said.
@eric144144 Answer the question. For 1995-2009, what is the most likely trend in global T, and what is the approximate range that encompasses the 95% likelihood estimate of trend?
You know, anyone can check. They just have to google Phil Jones BBC interview and they will see a scientist honestly answering the questions put to him, including stating when he is not competent to reply.
It's always a fascinating study to watch someone lie, whether intentionally or not, and when they've been caught, how they react tells you so much about who that person really is. Monckton is a snake-oil salesman but it really does show you that in order to combat ignorance and set things straight a lot of work has to go into it.
It is frighting to think people can do this and live with themselves. It is even more frighting to realize that these people are not so much different then most.
Iin case you haven't noticed, all the people talking about global warming, the scientists and the deniers, all of them, have jobs and get paid. Yelling "Follow the money" takes you nowhere. They all get paid. Some get government grants and do science; some get corporate think tank money and try to rip apart the science to protect the current ways of doing business. Instead of following the money, try following the science.
This is so painful to watch. It's as if potholer has Monckton in a submission hold, but Monckton simply refuses to tap-out. I haven't seen such a one-sided bout in quite a while.
Potholer discredited Monckton long ago. He's just toying with him, now.
The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.
@eric144144. Huh? The credibilty of the whole of science wil come into question? Because of some leaked emails that say exactly nothing and if they enlighten us at all, it is simply on the slightly wierd dialect that Scientists use? I doubt it. But I cant cite any papers to prove my assertion.
The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me. .
Potholer is just relaying the honest information to people who care to take the time to investigate furthur the bogus claims of climate deniers. Oh and what field of expertise does Dyson reside in. Physics. Hmmm. I find it funny all the deniers are never actually qualified in the field they are commenting on. Refute the science refute hundreds of peer reviewed papers and show us all how AGW is just a big scam im listening.
@Baldmother Dyson interview comment. Could easily apply to PH54
***
Connor - you are squealing imp compared to Freeman. Your assumptions are based on nothing more than computer modelling. Can I inform you that as a lecturer in computer science for the past 20 years - it is apparent to me that those who are coding these modelling scripts and algorithms - are doing precisely what is against all programming practice - that is they are not including all the variables.
Freeman Dyson is universally recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. He has worked on climate models. Climate scientists are no more than lab technicians in comparison. You are an un educated half wit.
Dyson is universally recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. He has worked on climate models. Climate scientists are no more than lab technicians in comparison. You are an uneducated half wit.
@eric144144 One aging physicist's opinion does not rule the world of all areas of science. No doubt he has made important contributions to the world of science. That does not make him an expert in everything.
Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics – Oxford University) 1
People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here.
@eric144144 Eric, what you've done is obvious. You came to a conclusion about this issue at the start, and from there you've been trying to amass information that backs up that conclusion. Decidedly un-skeptical.
Problem is, models are only one piece of the puzzle. There are numerous lines of empirical evidence that back up current warming being the product of an enhanced greenhouse gas effect.
Cooling stratosphere, rising tropopause, warming troposphere, nights warming faster than days etc
I don't believe any of that stuff you quoted vis in any way solid science. Even if it was true, correlation is not causation. It . If it were in any way solid, thecorporate media would be pushing it and they don't.
A lot of this stuff originates at Realclimate, a politically motivated abomination to the values of the scientific community. Realclimate was created to defend the utterly indefensible, the Hockey Stick.
@eric144144 Come up with a fact, dude. I've published more than 40 peer-reviewed papers on climate science topics. I believe that trumps "my brother publishes in Lancet."
However, no reason to trust me. So, pick a specific issue in climate science that you think the mainstream has got wrong, and we can discuss it.
My days discussing science with geeks is over. I have already made a few comments. Dyson wouldn't get involved either. He knows there ia a whole army of grovelling little technician wage slaves who are prepared to lie, spin and allow their results to be spun.
James Lovelock
If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.
@eric144144 No, let's not stop there. Give us a single fact that demonstrates you know anything about what is wrong with the AGW thesis.
Meanwhile, give me a link for your Mike Hulme statements. The only ones I find are blog comments written by "eric144". Some are hostile of him, but now he's a hero?
@eric144144 Okay, so I googled Mike Hulme IPCC (good idea!), and the first hit is to a PDF file in which Hulme himself says that his remarks on the IPCC were taken out of context by newspapers and internet blogs. Well worth a read. So, Hulme is *not in any way* "excoriating" the IPCC; quite the opposite.
Imagine if all your statements are equally reliable!
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
@eric144144 Did you read his PDF file? Did you read Hulme's statements in context? There is *nothing* there that criticizes the scientific knowledge reported by the IPCC. What Hulme is concerned with is the politicization of climate science. By the time you and I see the IPCC report Executive Summary, it is edited by politicians to a consensus agreement, even where the scientists who best know a specific corner of the science disagree.
My only purpose on this thread is to denigrate PH54's dishonest, one sided corporate nonsense in attacking Monckton. The emphasis is on the word 'corporate'. I have been successful in shifting responsibility for the funding of this scam away from the pennies that are given to sceptics to the hundreds of million given to environmental groups from (principally) governments and the finance industry.
Peter Hadfield has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no bias on the subject of climate science. He has shot down both sides when they state unverified rubish. He is also very happy to admit all of his own errors. Monckton on the other hand is nothing but a showman with more bulldust in his armoury than facts.
Yes, daft Peter proudly told me of his sea level video. I told him that if I was a complete moron, I would believe that made him unbiased. Nazi George Monbiot has done the same ting.
@eric144144 So, if the discussion is about whether the IPCC as presently structured is the best way to coordinate climate change science, why didn't you say so? Why make up crap about the science being wrong?
Lots of us working scientists don't appreciate the meddling of politicians ("consensus building") in the way our results get distilled. So, yes, there are ways to change the IPCC structure.
I wrote "He excoriates the whole IPCC mechanism and that is where the so called consensus comes from.".
Compared with politicians like oil company fronts Pachauri and Gore, scientists are just corralled sheep waiting to be sheared of their integrity and self respect. It's called 'ambition'.
@eric144144 No, he doesn't "excoriate", but I agree: he does say that the way the IPCC is set up distorts the scientific reality. In many cases it dumbs it down to what *all* national political reps are willing to sign off on. So, if Saudi Arabia says "We won't sign this unless you reduce "very likely' to 'likely'. ", then they do.
The effect is, the IPCC's scientific message is *more conservative* than almost all climate scientists would support.
I really don't believe that at all (about the more conservative). I will believe climate technicians when they live on the national minimum wage, sell their cars, never fly and send their kids to state schools. They can donate the surplus to an eskimo refrigeration project.
Let's not forget that even crazy man James Hansen says that carbon trading is an oil company and banking scam. So Saudi Arabia won't be complaining.
@eric144144 You need to read more about how the IPCC works. And then you need to read up on the science. And it would help to research Mike Hulme beyond a single quote.
I don't like carbon trading either; prefer a carbon tax.
I know a lot more about the politics of this than you do, including the IPCC and Hulme. I studied the science about 3 years ago and was able to get climate 'scientists' to admit that their models did not reflect the complexity they had showered on me in the preceding argument.
There will be no carbon tax . Enron and Gore enshrined carbon trading into article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. There are trillions of dollars to be stolen. Enron robbed California with the same scam.
One was from UMIST and the argument was on a forum. They knew vastly more than me, but weren't ready for the punch line. It wasn't a deliberate trick, it was an innocent question which I suspected the answer was 'no'.
I am not suggesting this means anything outside my personal experience.
@eric144144 My first wife was Irish (born in Dublin) so I know what you mean. She used to tell a great story about her family. One of her sisters confronted their father saying, "Why is it we have to continually fight? Can't we just find a way to love each other like a real family?" My wife asked her father how he responded to it. He said, "I threw 'er out a th' fuckin' house, that's 'ow I responded!"
Good story. Especially 'my FIRST wife'. Here in Glasgow we find that taking large quantities of MDMA reduces the aggression and we love each other very much when we do that.
As Professor Jones wrote, 'Hide the Decline' showed that temperature proxies don't work and that not only the climate technicians involved were prepared to lie, but the entire scientific community is prepared to lie to cover it up. The reason is the multi trillion dollar carbon trading market.
@eric144144 Wrong for the 14 thousandth time. Read the emails about what "hide the decline" referred to. It was only for one diagram for one report for a non-science audience. The divergence problem also is only a function of SOME northern hemisphere tree ring data. It's an issue that has been openly discussed in published literature.
But don't take my word for it. Read the research for yourself!
I studied dendrochronology at university. The overwhelming impression is that this area of science is highly controversial (Rob Wilson gave a lecture on it recently). Tree ring widths are affected by other factors than temperature. Again, this isn't a problem unless you have Goldman Sachs and David Cameron breathing down your neck demanding an answer that suits them.
The most damning view of climate 'science' comes from a real insider Mike Hulme, deputy to born again Christian environmentalist loony John Houghton (appointed by Margaret Thatcher). He excoriates the whole IPCC mechanism and that is where the so called consensus comes from.
Strangely, Hulme is also a Christian environmentalist as is your little friend John Cook. Unlike Cook, Hulme is a scientist
You are a science fan. I think your naivety of its reality deceives you
You tell that to Professor Jonathon Jones ( Oxford )
The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
Yes I was. The general problem is that these people aren't honest decent citizens like Dyson, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein, they are politically motivated rascals like Michael Mann and pals.. Even Roger Pielke Jr, known as a sceptic is a campaigning environmentalist, as is Mike Hulme. That's the problem. Politics mixed with indetereminate science.
What is your opinion of dark matter ? What is the Royal Society's opinion ? You don't know. No politics.
They are politically motivated individuals who are spinning the science to make it look a lot more solid than it is. Exactly as Dyson says. It really is easy to spin statistical methodology especially if your peers are less than critically playing the same game.When Mann was caught, Realclimate was set up to defend him. That is outrageous. The science code of honour assumes their colleagues are honesty and competent. This isn't pure science, it's a good part politics.
who is you
juanvga 1 week ago
superb scientist
AceofDlamonds 1 month ago
As you mention potholer54, myths take many days or months to debunk as it is easy just to open one's mouth and claim anything you want.Is the only answer to spend a lot of time debunking, or is there someway of stopping some of the nonsense?
nash984954 1 month ago in playlist Potholer Debunks
‘stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London…Between 2007 and 2010, David Breashears retraced the steps of early photographic pioneers such as Major E O Wheeler, George Mallory and Vittorio Sella - to try to re-take their views of breathtaking glacial vistas’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15216875
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
Potholer. You are the smartest person I've ever had the pleasure of encountering.
You are intellectually sharp with the education to back it up. I LOVE IT.
Lots of respect your way. :D
Primordialfan1 5 months ago
Monckton is a lying hippocrit.
MoralRapist 6 months ago
@CrystalStarr04
Go to redgreenandblue org
and 20090618 worlds-first-real-time-carbon-counter-unveiled-in-new-york
(shit - I hate having to break up these URLs in YouTube comment boxes).
That's a start! German bank made it really easy for you!
mphello 6 months ago
@LillabetteHane =I was interested in how you knew how to spell "Bhat's" name= I'm not sure I follow this question at all. I had never heard of Prof Bhat until Monckton mentioned him, both in his presentations and in his e-mail to me. Bhat's name is clearly spelled out in both.
potholer54 7 months ago
You state the sun was cooler and is now warmer and getting hotter in this video, but you don't put this as a facter in the earth heating, why?
mukmakin 7 months ago
@mukmakin =You state the sun was cooler and is now warmer and getting hotter in this video, but you don't put this as a facter in the earth heating, why?= Because solar irradiance has been flat since the 1950s. Climatologists conclude that the sun therefore cannot be responsible for most of the warming over the last 35 years. You are confusing this with the increase in irradiance over the phanerozoic, which encompasses 500 million years.
potholer54 7 months ago 7
@potholer54 and @mukmakin Yes, there are many cycles and oppositely-directed mini-trends within larger trends within... etc, etc... within the large trend mentioned in the video. My understanding is that CO2 not only explains the long term increasing trend but also the short term trends, including the current very short term trend of a few decades where solar irradiance has been neutral to weaker. See the Wikipedia article Solar_variation.
hozelda 2 weeks ago
@CrystalStarr04 The byproduct of nuclear power is not CO2... so to answer your question, humans have no effect on CO2 levels due to Nuclear Power Plant operations. The main ways in which humans increase greenhouse gas levels is through the burning of fossil fuels and agriculture.
Also, instead of asking on youtube your questions, potholer has various other videos on climate change w/ sources for both research and data, so instead of asking other people to do it for you, maybe do it yourself?
srik241 7 months ago
@srik241 I think you ran into one of the crazies that lurk in these parts.
mindgrapes 7 months ago
13:45 "when politicians evade questions it means they're hiding something" - what's your source on that, can you back up that statement?
daskraut 8 months ago
11:58 in your voice suddenly turns jeremy paxman's.
harmonykrieg 8 months ago
@potholer54 You wouldn't happen to be willing to give up the full emails of your correspondence with Monckton would you? (or have simply missed them?) I'm kinda interested in reading his full emails.
Z4RUM4N 8 months ago
@Z4RUM4N =You wouldn't happen to be willing to give up the full emails of your correspondence with Monckton would you?= I've put them on the videos. Just use the pause button to read them. If you have trouble reading anything, let me know and I'll send you a copy. But no good asking me questions in the body of a video forum. I have dozens of videos on my channel and I can't monitor every message on every forum. You're lucky I caught this one.
potholer54 7 months ago 4
international marxist conspiracy...oooh snap!
managarm1349 9 months ago
What is Moncton's agenda?
rpm303 9 months ago 17
@rpm303 I think he just likes all the attention he gets from this. He probably found out that if he does this lots and lots of people will listen to him and even worship him. He probably just really really loves the attention, and so doesn't care about anything else.
Z4RUM4N 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What is Moncton's agenda?"
Al Gore's"evil twin" giving misinformation in the opposite extrme?
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@rpm303 He must be working for big companies or the republicans or something I think, probably getting payed very well for brainwashing his audiences.
dutchbb1979 5 months ago
@rpm303 hes getting paid, thats his agenda
grendelee 5 months ago
@rpm303 I think Monckton is feeling a little useless in his older age so why not take up a project that pays well and keeps his ego afloat. The fact that he doesn't shut up about his qualifications - albeit irrelevant to the topic at hand - shows a man clutching at straws. His love of the classics extends to classical methods of science. In doing so he ignores the complexities of modern research and nuance.
Atheeizm 1 month ago
BOOM. A big ass potholer boot to the fish-face of Monckton.
I love these videos.
WhrsTheMoneyLabowski 9 months ago 3
Man, I've never even heard of that guy before today and I consider him a dishonest fuck. Good video.
SynerG4ce 10 months ago
As of the 14th of April, 2011, 7 people are willfully ignorant fucks.
SynerG4ce 10 months ago 29
@SynerG4ce
Must be Lord Monckton and 6 guys from the Alex "we've always been right" Jones show (Infowars / Prisonplanet).
I feel sorry for Alex. First he went with this Sgt. Petersburg astronomer who claimed the WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM IS WARMING because of the Sun. For long time Alex was shouting that the moons of Saturn are melting (heh). Then Alex turned around and came into conclusion that actually EARTH IS COOLING, now influenced with Monckton.
Aurinkohirvi 10 months ago
@SynerG4ce
Fortunately, looking at the viewership statistics, the rate at which "ignorant fucks" are disliking the video has declined to roughly 1 every second month ...though without further information it is impossible to say whether this is because they've stopped coming here to be pwned or because their heads have been forcibly removed from their 'behinds'...alas, my money would be on the latter.
Gidwan 3 months ago
nice debunking, as usual.
Aanthanur 10 months ago
Wow, This guy (munckton) is a total wanker. I have noticed a correlation between men that need to have titles or letters after their name. I could use these, I have a higher education. I also hope to have and display some humility.
pumpstations 11 months ago
Isn't it weird the stuff that randomly comes out of ones mouth sometimes? Do you know where you got the "earthquakes" from? I ask only out of curiosity, I saw the correction, obviously. I just wonder what you were thinking about that made you say it.
jolluxz 11 months ago
@jolluxz - =Do you know where you got the "earthquakes" from?= I was probably thinking of Bhat's real area of expertise, which is tectonics.
potholer54 11 months ago
@potholer54 this is hilarious
IM gonna put it in my favorites
jonLukasC 1 week ago
This is fast becoming a series on how to hustle. I'm impressed. He'll say 'be skeptical and don't take things on blind faith' and then do the exact opposite, and his audience is wrong-footed because they already dismissed him from doing the opposite to what he recommended. 'Never admit your're wrong, rephrase instead' also like a maxim a hustler (or politician?) will use. 'Blind em with science (or rather what looks scientific)'... brilliant hustle, intentional or not. Hail the aristocracy!
intermender 11 months ago
bahahaha, this was fantasic! Especially towards the end with that e-mail exchange. It's about time somebody owned that monckton, I hope he gets to see these. These videos are very well done, and thorough. good debunking.
IndividualParties 11 months ago
I wish I had friends like Peter Hadfield
Here in Louisiana, people like peter are kind of rare
BeondaPale 11 months ago
Beyond the science, I think it's hilarious that Monkton quite obviously expects a laugh from the audience when he says "...since the days of the Raj, don't you know." His shuffling clearly indicates his joke didn't quite go over as well as it did when he performed it in front of a mirror.
johndivy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@541iceman
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@Chronosaur part I
Within your description/question you have made incorrect assumptions and subsequent conclusions. To clarify your bb interpretation, lets assume a 1 m2 surface area with uniform temperature distribution within your "simplified" model.
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@Chronosaur part II
"When the mirror is put in place, the total power radiated to infinity by the black body will still equal that supplied by the spot light"
The radiated power per m2 does in fact remain the same. Not because the bb temperature increase/decreases via re-radiated lw from the mirror or the removal thereof. Rather, the area of radiation is reduce from 1 m2 to 1 m2 less the area of mirror...thus the intensity is the same.
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@SkepticalRealist (first post) "The radiated power.. does in fact remain the same.... the area of radiation is reduce.. to 1 m2 less the area of mirror => the intensity is the same"
I think you're getting very confused here. Firstly, it's more relevant to think about radiation per unit solid angle than per unit area of the surface in this example, but your logic's dubious even if we gloss over that. What do you think "intensity" means in this context?
Chronosaur 11 months ago
@Chronosaur part III
"This implies that the black body has to look brighter when the mirror's not in the way."
No, temperature "brighter" is a function of the spotlight only. The mirror has zero effect on temperature.
"If we accept that it does look brighter though, we can agree that there is only one way it can do this, seeing as it's a BB, no? Ie it gets hotter"
NO...the bb is NOT "brighter" i.e. hotter it is the same temperature regardless of mirror.
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@SkepticalRealist (second post) The total power leaving the surface going to infinity is the same with and without the mirror right? However, the same amount of power gets radiated through a smaller solid angle when the mirror is there, so the amount of power per solid angle must increase. This is commonly referred to as "Radiant intensity". It's a very simple point, which you appear to completely misunderstand. Do your homework before playing the "i know physics, you don't" card!
Chronosaur 11 months ago
@Chronosaur P1 "The total power leaving the surface going to infinity is the same with and without the mirror right?"
Good, you agree with me.
"However, the same amount of power gets radiated through a smaller solid angle when the mirror is there"
You've reduced your solid angle so you radiant intensity adjust accordingly. Just as said
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Woah - this is like rowing through treacle. Nearly there...
So: we've agreed that:
- the total radiated power stays the same
- however, the radiant intensity must increase when the mirror's there
Yes?
So: for maybe the seventh time, given that it's a black body, how can the radiant intensity possibly increase without the temperature increasing?
Chronosaur 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chronosaur "- however, the radiant intensity must increase when the mirror's there
Yes?"
NO!!
The radiant intensity does NOT increase! Got it, does not. Two reason: Reflected IR does not increase the emission spectra of the bb surface. And because no LW increase, any difference you view is as result change in your view angle.
If you think otherwise, prove it!
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
@Chronosaur PII
If you're radiation per unit solid angle shows I'm wrong, prove it...run the numbers. Don't forget radius = infinity.
You said:
This is commonly referred to as "Radiant intensity". It's a very simple point, which you appear to completely misunderstand. Do your homework before playing the "i know physics, you don't" card!
Your tushery recitation of radiative physics is undoubtedly a consequence of imprudent use of Wiki.
Hey Chronosaur, "I know physics, you don't".
SkepticalRealist 11 months ago
How did Moncton ever become a speaker on global warming in the first place? He has no qualifications and the little qualifications he claims are apparently false. He has no science degree, he has no research experience, and has never worked as a climate scientist. I am just as qualified to speak on the subject as he is, but I know my own limitations and know that I won't understand the research properly.
christo930 11 months ago
Comment removed
Emoshons 11 months ago
Voice of clarity. If only more people would see these.
turcca 11 months ago
I absolutely loved your cabin analogy.
It really goes to just show how (possibly willfully) ignorant some people are willing to be.
Thanks a lot for these videos, I enjoyed them very much.
Korkzor 1 year ago 4
@541iceman
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
GOOD NEWS
Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics (AKA assholes)
articles latimes com/2010/nov/08/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108
userono 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@541iceman
Regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said " I have a physics degree."------Good, please explain where Kirchhoff got it wrong.
Also regarding your refutation of Kirchhoff's experiment example you said "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap," -----Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
@Chronosaur Part I
Three points before your question:
1. You have not asked we the question five times...maybe three
2. You have not articulated the same questions of the possible three times you've asked
3. Your question references a thought experiment far deviated from my scenario
Your righteous indignation is bit misplaced.
"A spotlight shines on a perfectly black surface." Is the surface a BB or is it's emissivity < 1?
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
@SkepticalRealist For some reason you disagree that the radiation leaving the black body will now have greater intensity per unit solid angle, even though you agreed that the black body would look brighter. This is a contradiction. Do you not agree? Or are you so confused that you don't see this?
If we accept that it does look brighter though, we can agree that there is only one way it can do this, seeing as it's a BB, no? Ie it gets hotter
Chronosaur 1 year ago
@Chronosaur Part II
BB or not, your next statement is not accurate "It now has to radiate more per unit solid angle for the fluxes to balance, as the mirror's in the way."
The surface does NOT have to radiate more. From where does the more come?
"How exactly do you think it does that without getting hotter, given that it's perfectly black? How?"
Because the surface is NOT radiating MORE the surface is not getting warmer.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
@SkepticalRealist Ok - lets get this clear then. This is the thought experiment (I simplified yours slightly by making the surface a black body):
- A spotlight shines on a black body surface. The surface heats up until it radiates as much power as the spotlight supplies.
- A perfect mirror is put in place. This doesn't occlude the spot light, but reflects some of the radiated heat back onto the black body surface.
Chronosaur 1 year ago
@SkepticalRealist Tell me where I'm wrong. You agreed that:
- When the mirror is put in place, the total power radiated to infinity by the black body will still equal that supplied by the spot light
- This implies that the black body has to look brighter when the mirror's not in the way. This is because, looking in from infinity, some angles are occluded by the mirror, and it still has to radiate the same total amount of power as it did without the mirror.
Chronosaur 1 year ago
@potholer54 Not to be confused with the 11 year solar cycle which occurs on top of this slow increase. (The 11 year solar cycle is perceptible in the temperature record).
Zantorc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@541iceman "You can browse around the web and find rebuttals to this crap,"
Have you read these rebuttals?...Point me to them.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
@Chronosaur
Sorry I though you were referencing thread regarding Kirchhoff cavity experiment...which does lead to Planks equation. By the way, Kirchhoff cavity experiment demonstrates why the spot will not get brighter.
Re-redation can't increase temperature/luminosity of the surface. To do so requires an frequency/energy increase. These are stepped transition...so increases are not cumulative of lower energies but rather a whole step requiring higher energies.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
@SkepticalRealist You still haven't answered the question! This is, what, the fifth time?
A spotlight shines on a perfectly black surface. Then, a mirror is put in place to reflect the radiated light/heat back onto the light spot. It now has to radiate more per unit solid angle for the fluxes to balance, as the mirror's in the way. How exactly do you think it does that without getting hotter, given that it's perfectly black? How?
Don't ramble about photons - tell me what you think happens!
Chronosaur 1 year ago
Aren't the scientists also cherry-picking? We are in an interglacial and it has been warming for over 15,000 years. This is explained by orbital mechanics and not atmospheric modeling.
Climate scientists need to simplify their research for the average person. Until then, Monckton reigns supreme.
jasesuper 1 year ago
@jasesuper If you actually read the science, rather than just the media reports, you'll find that scientists are always clear about what their science does and doesn't say. Look at the IPCC 2007 Working Group 1 document, and you'll find hundreds of pages describing what we know of natural climate variations from the Little Ice Age to the beginning of the planet.
Meanwhile, Monckton lies.
Scientists need to simplify their message, but then they get accused of cherry-picking.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman I can find more information about the end of the current interglacial on skeptic sites than I can on the IPCC site. All of the IPCC 2007 WG1 info regarding orbital forcing seems to lead to some yadda about CO2.
Monckton is seen as someone helping to save us from overburdening energy taxation. Many of us believe the science is not really as 'settled' as some claim - and still needs more research (on both sides).
jasesuper 1 year ago
@jasesuper Monckton is entitled to argue for no "overburdening energy taxation": I would agree that the best balanced approach to AGW is not yet sorted out. However, he is *not* entitled to make his point by lying about the science, which is clearly what he does, even after he has been corrected.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman So it's okay for Al Gore to predict a 20ft sea level rise "coming soon," but if Monckton gets a few figures wrong he is an outright liar?
I think Monckton is parroting arguments - like Al Gore on the other side.
jasesuper 1 year ago
@jasesuper Well, you'll need a citation for Al Gore saying that "20 ft sea level rise is coming soon". (and define "soon".)
However, it's preferable that people get their science from scientists, not Al Gore, Monckton, Anthony Watts, or anyone else.
Monckton is a liar because, after he's told the truth, he continues to lie.
541iceman 1 year ago
@jasesuper Well, you'll need a citation for Al Gore saying that "20 ft sea level rise is coming soon". (and define "soon".)
However, it's preferable that people get their science from scientists, not Al Gore, Monckton, Anthony Watts, or anyone else.
Monckton is a liar because, after he's told the truth, he continues to lie.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman I have tried to get my information from science. All I have been left with are some quotes, from scientific papers, suggesting the glacial/interglacial periods, in respect to Milankovitch cycles (orbit mechanics), are not well understood. They don't know when the Holocene (warm period) will end. That leads someone like me to conclude that climate change is not completely understood.
jasesuper 1 year ago
@jasesuper The IPCC provides a short section on that (section 6.4.1.8, pp. 453-454). Based on Milankovich only, the correct orbital conditions for the onset of the next ice age will be about another 30,000 years. The section cites various papers that you could follow up on.
For sure, climate is not completely understood. We need to know more: agreed. But we know more than the "skeptic" community lets on.
541iceman 1 year ago
@jasesuper As for "end of the ice age"; the IPCC makes the point that positive feedbacks are required to get enough warming from relatively weak solar radiation changes, most of which have to do with hemispheric and seasonal changes rather than global net insolation.
The IPCC WG1 report has 20 pages on what is known about ice age cycles. If that's not enough, follow up on the cited references.
541iceman 1 year ago
@jasesuper No. The average person should grow a brain and get up to the level of the scientist, not the other way around. And, if they don't have the time or energy to do that, then they shouldn't be dictating laws and regulations that make it a crime to fight terrorists like the coal industry who continue to destroy the planet and are a threat to the nation and to humanity.
mphello 6 months ago
Meanwhile, people still believe this guy and pay him handsomely for misinformation.
pillowbugg 1 year ago
eric144144 is melting: what's going on?
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman It must be because of global warming
Chronosaur 1 year ago
@Chronosaur part II
Otherwise a thermos of warm coffee, would soon boil..or cans of compressed air would heat until spontaneous explosion.
SkepticalRealist 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Hehe, what do liberal and conservative ideologies have to do with facts? You don't need to believe in science facts - that's why they are called FACTS. Go to conservapedia and bath in your ignorance there - that page has an abundance of it (ignorance. Not facts).
bleeduss 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bleeduss
@bleeduss
They do in Yankland. The yanks have some of the lowest state educational standards in the developed world. Conservapedia is for yanks. Yanks have think tanks. That's how you get conservatism. Bush would only exist in yankland. Obama is dumber than Bush. Yanks. Some of them are very clever.
eric144144 1 year ago
Yes, but that has been cherry picked like everything else in climate 'science'.
Even +0.12 C/decade would not require any action on CO2. The other point is that it has been warming since about 1650 in Britain. As for the rest of the world, no one really has a clue. All we have is cherry picked and spun proxy data from politically motivated technicians.
That isn't a a partisan point of view, it's the simple truth The surface temperatures over the oceans in the past is an unknown quantity
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Let's see: you start by misrepresenting what Phil Jones said in the BBC interview. When you can't fight that any more, you move on to "cherry picked". However ... Jones himself did *not* cherry pick data: he was asked by the interviewer to comment on specific time intervals. These intervals were chosen precisely because they are what denialists had previously "cherry picked".
541iceman 1 year ago
So far, we have clear evidence that Monckton is a liar and fraud; and Phil Jones answers questions precisely in a geeky science way. I know who I'd rather trust.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
Jones' answers clearly show there is nothing exceptional about current temperatures (since the 1990s). Even if you are stupid enough to believe the concocted temperature record. Monckton is an unsupported amateur and a nut job. He would be expected to make some mistakes.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144
'Monckton is an unsupported amateur and a nut job' and here is some more evidence!
watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 You didn't misrepresent anything? Fill in the dots in the following sentence. "Based on Phil Jones' answer in the BBC interview, the trend in global T from 1995 to 2009 lies in range ... to ... C/decade, with a 95% likelihood, and has a mean value of ... C/decade."
The answer is *not* "It didn't warm from 1995 to 2009."
541iceman 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 I suggest you actually read the BBC interview with Phil Jones, in full, spend some time understanding it, and then work out why your primary sources misrepresented what he said.
541iceman 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Answer the question. For 1995-2009, what is the most likely trend in global T, and what is the approximate range that encompasses the 95% likelihood estimate of trend?
You know, anyone can check. They just have to google Phil Jones BBC interview and they will see a scientist honestly answering the questions put to him, including stating when he is not competent to reply.
541iceman 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Is even the simple science and statistics too hard for you?
541iceman 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Ultimately I expect the facts will win over "extreme geek-crushing language". But keep trying.
541iceman 1 year ago
You are a goddamn Legend... except real. Asset to the interwebs,
AxisMundiOnline 1 year ago
global warming is a scam, wake up! These propoganda videos are about the best I've seen for trying to protect a debunked theory.
Dodger481 1 year ago
Wow, I always learn a lot when you publish a new video.
ReeseTora 1 year ago
It's always a fascinating study to watch someone lie, whether intentionally or not, and when they've been caught, how they react tells you so much about who that person really is. Monckton is a snake-oil salesman but it really does show you that in order to combat ignorance and set things straight a lot of work has to go into it.
vryc 1 year ago
Why btw they try so hard to hide the global warming? I can't explain it.
ot44eto 1 year ago
wow ... that was rape ... gjdm
emailjwr 1 year ago
Good job.... !! they lie without shame.
TheBinary123 1 year ago
It is frighting to think people can do this and live with themselves. It is even more frighting to realize that these people are not so much different then most.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
Iin case you haven't noticed, all the people talking about global warming, the scientists and the deniers, all of them, have jobs and get paid. Yelling "Follow the money" takes you nowhere. They all get paid. Some get government grants and do science; some get corporate think tank money and try to rip apart the science to protect the current ways of doing business. Instead of following the money, try following the science.
funnybleh 1 year ago
Ha ha ha ha ha. Brilliant. What a toad.
FreindlyRanger 1 year ago
I love seeing Monckton being destroyed. We can only hope that the people who need to see this sort of thing the most, do so.
kaupaxup 1 year ago
This is so painful to watch. It's as if potholer has Monckton in a submission hold, but Monckton simply refuses to tap-out. I haven't seen such a one-sided bout in quite a while.
Potholer discredited Monckton long ago. He's just toying with him, now.
aimforcentermass 1 year ago
@Bridgmanify
cont.
The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144. Huh? The credibilty of the whole of science wil come into question? Because of some leaked emails that say exactly nothing and if they enlighten us at all, it is simply on the slightly wierd dialect that Scientists use? I doubt it. But I cant cite any papers to prove my assertion.
FreindlyRanger 1 year ago
Jonathon Jones 3
The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me. .
eric144144 1 year ago
Potholer is just relaying the honest information to people who care to take the time to investigate furthur the bogus claims of climate deniers. Oh and what field of expertise does Dyson reside in. Physics. Hmmm. I find it funny all the deniers are never actually qualified in the field they are commenting on. Refute the science refute hundreds of peer reviewed papers and show us all how AGW is just a big scam im listening.
Baldmother 1 year ago
@Baldmother Dyson interview comment. Could easily apply to PH54
***
Connor - you are squealing imp compared to Freeman. Your assumptions are based on nothing more than computer modelling. Can I inform you that as a lecturer in computer science for the past 20 years - it is apparent to me that those who are coding these modelling scripts and algorithms - are doing precisely what is against all programming practice - that is they are not including all the variables.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144
From all the dumb excuses that deniers throw up, the 'computermodelling is not reliable' one is by far the most mindnumbing.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Freeman Dyson is universally recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. He has worked on climate models. Climate scientists are no more than lab technicians in comparison. You are an un educated half wit.
eric144144 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Dyson is universally recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. He has worked on climate models. Climate scientists are no more than lab technicians in comparison. You are an uneducated half wit.
eric144144 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 One aging physicist's opinion does not rule the world of all areas of science. No doubt he has made important contributions to the world of science. That does not make him an expert in everything.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics – Oxford University) 1
People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Eric, what you've done is obvious. You came to a conclusion about this issue at the start, and from there you've been trying to amass information that backs up that conclusion. Decidedly un-skeptical.
Problem is, models are only one piece of the puzzle. There are numerous lines of empirical evidence that back up current warming being the product of an enhanced greenhouse gas effect.
Cooling stratosphere, rising tropopause, warming troposphere, nights warming faster than days etc
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
You cannot make predictions without models.
I don't believe any of that stuff you quoted vis in any way solid science. Even if it was true, correlation is not causation. It . If it were in any way solid, thecorporate media would be pushing it and they don't.
A lot of this stuff originates at Realclimate, a politically motivated abomination to the values of the scientific community. Realclimate was created to defend the utterly indefensible, the Hockey Stick.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Have you actually read ANY of the research? Obviously not.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Come up with a fact, dude. I've published more than 40 peer-reviewed papers on climate science topics. I believe that trumps "my brother publishes in Lancet."
However, no reason to trust me. So, pick a specific issue in climate science that you think the mainstream has got wrong, and we can discuss it.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
My days discussing science with geeks is over. I have already made a few comments. Dyson wouldn't get involved either. He knows there ia a whole army of grovelling little technician wage slaves who are prepared to lie, spin and allow their results to be spun.
James Lovelock
If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Oh, right. "Someone might make me look stupid: my days of discussing ... are over."
Dyson admits he doesn't know climate science. he doesn't know how much is based on models vs how much is based on physics and data.
"James Lovelock" What?
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
You certailny couldn't make anyone look stupid apart from yourself. Your Dyson comment is half witted, so we will stop there.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 No, let's not stop there. Give us a single fact that demonstrates you know anything about what is wrong with the AGW thesis.
Meanwhile, give me a link for your Mike Hulme statements. The only ones I find are blog comments written by "eric144". Some are hostile of him, but now he's a hero?
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
You tell me one fact that would make anyone believe that humans are creating a potentially dangerous climatic state. That is the burden of proof.
Mike Hulme IPCC - About 68,400 results.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Okay, so I googled Mike Hulme IPCC (good idea!), and the first hit is to a PDF file in which Hulme himself says that his remarks on the IPCC were taken out of context by newspapers and internet blogs. Well worth a read. So, Hulme is *not in any way* "excoriating" the IPCC; quite the opposite.
Imagine if all your statements are equally reliable!
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
Hulme
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Did you read his PDF file? Did you read Hulme's statements in context? There is *nothing* there that criticizes the scientific knowledge reported by the IPCC. What Hulme is concerned with is the politicization of climate science. By the time you and I see the IPCC report Executive Summary, it is edited by politicians to a consensus agreement, even where the scientists who best know a specific corner of the science disagree.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
He says the IPCC should fuck off and die. How critcal do you want ?
eric144144 1 year ago
@541iceman
My only purpose on this thread is to denigrate PH54's dishonest, one sided corporate nonsense in attacking Monckton. The emphasis is on the word 'corporate'. I have been successful in shifting responsibility for the funding of this scam away from the pennies that are given to sceptics to the hundreds of million given to environmental groups from (principally) governments and the finance industry.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144
Peter Hadfield has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no bias on the subject of climate science. He has shot down both sides when they state unverified rubish. He is also very happy to admit all of his own errors. Monckton on the other hand is nothing but a showman with more bulldust in his armoury than facts.
Bridgmanify 1 year ago
@Bridgmanify
Yes, daft Peter proudly told me of his sea level video. I told him that if I was a complete moron, I would believe that made him unbiased. Nazi George Monbiot has done the same ting.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Eric, were you born this angry or did you cultivate it on your own?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Rob, were you born naive or are you an American ?
.
I live in the suburbs of Glasgow, born of 4 Irish grandparents, of course I'm fucking angry !
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 So, if the discussion is about whether the IPCC as presently structured is the best way to coordinate climate change science, why didn't you say so? Why make up crap about the science being wrong?
Lots of us working scientists don't appreciate the meddling of politicians ("consensus building") in the way our results get distilled. So, yes, there are ways to change the IPCC structure.
But the AGW facts won't change.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
I wrote "He excoriates the whole IPCC mechanism and that is where the so called consensus comes from.".
Compared with politicians like oil company fronts Pachauri and Gore, scientists are just corralled sheep waiting to be sheared of their integrity and self respect. It's called 'ambition'.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Only he doesn't "excoriate" it, does he? He just recommends finding a better way to do it.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
He excoriates its very existence as a politically driven mechanism which is distorting the scientific reality.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 No, he doesn't "excoriate", but I agree: he does say that the way the IPCC is set up distorts the scientific reality. In many cases it dumbs it down to what *all* national political reps are willing to sign off on. So, if Saudi Arabia says "We won't sign this unless you reduce "very likely' to 'likely'. ", then they do.
The effect is, the IPCC's scientific message is *more conservative* than almost all climate scientists would support.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
I really don't believe that at all (about the more conservative). I will believe climate technicians when they live on the national minimum wage, sell their cars, never fly and send their kids to state schools. They can donate the surplus to an eskimo refrigeration project.
Let's not forget that even crazy man James Hansen says that carbon trading is an oil company and banking scam. So Saudi Arabia won't be complaining.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 You need to read more about how the IPCC works. And then you need to read up on the science. And it would help to research Mike Hulme beyond a single quote.
I don't like carbon trading either; prefer a carbon tax.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
I know a lot more about the politics of this than you do, including the IPCC and Hulme. I studied the science about 3 years ago and was able to get climate 'scientists' to admit that their models did not reflect the complexity they had showered on me in the preceding argument.
There will be no carbon tax . Enron and Gore enshrined carbon trading into article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. There are trillions of dollars to be stolen. Enron robbed California with the same scam.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Which climate scientists, and what did they say? And what "preceding argument" ?
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
One was from UMIST and the argument was on a forum. They knew vastly more than me, but weren't ready for the punch line. It wasn't a deliberate trick, it was an innocent question which I suspected the answer was 'no'.
I am not suggesting this means anything outside my personal experience.
eric144144 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Everything I write has a large pinch of aggressive piss take in it. It keeps things interesting.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 My first wife was Irish (born in Dublin) so I know what you mean. She used to tell a great story about her family. One of her sisters confronted their father saying, "Why is it we have to continually fight? Can't we just find a way to love each other like a real family?" My wife asked her father how he responded to it. He said, "I threw 'er out a th' fuckin' house, that's 'ow I responded!"
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Good story. Especially 'my FIRST wife'. Here in Glasgow we find that taking large quantities of MDMA reduces the aggression and we love each other very much when we do that.
eric144144 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
As Professor Jones wrote, 'Hide the Decline' showed that temperature proxies don't work and that not only the climate technicians involved were prepared to lie, but the entire scientific community is prepared to lie to cover it up. The reason is the multi trillion dollar carbon trading market.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Wrong for the 14 thousandth time. Read the emails about what "hide the decline" referred to. It was only for one diagram for one report for a non-science audience. The divergence problem also is only a function of SOME northern hemisphere tree ring data. It's an issue that has been openly discussed in published literature.
But don't take my word for it. Read the research for yourself!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
I studied dendrochronology at university. The overwhelming impression is that this area of science is highly controversial (Rob Wilson gave a lecture on it recently). Tree ring widths are affected by other factors than temperature. Again, this isn't a problem unless you have Goldman Sachs and David Cameron breathing down your neck demanding an answer that suits them.
eric144144 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
The most damning view of climate 'science' comes from a real insider Mike Hulme, deputy to born again Christian environmentalist loony John Houghton (appointed by Margaret Thatcher). He excoriates the whole IPCC mechanism and that is where the so called consensus comes from.
Strangely, Hulme is also a Christian environmentalist as is your little friend John Cook. Unlike Cook, Hulme is a scientist
You are a science fan. I think your naivety of its reality deceives you
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 "...the entire scientific community is prepared to lie.."
Eric, that comment is just too stupid for words!
Bridgmanify 1 year ago
@Bridgmanify
You tell that to Professor Jonathon Jones ( Oxford )
The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Again, you do realize that the "hiding the decline" issue (divergent tree ring data) is part of the published literature. Right?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Yes I was. The general problem is that these people aren't honest decent citizens like Dyson, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein, they are politically motivated rascals like Michael Mann and pals.. Even Roger Pielke Jr, known as a sceptic is a campaigning environmentalist, as is Mike Hulme. That's the problem. Politics mixed with indetereminate science.
What is your opinion of dark matter ? What is the Royal Society's opinion ? You don't know. No politics.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 "he general problem is that these people aren't honest decent citizens "
If they aren't honest citizens why would they publish all the information in research papers?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
They are politically motivated individuals who are spinning the science to make it look a lot more solid than it is. Exactly as Dyson says. It really is easy to spin statistical methodology especially if your peers are less than critically playing the same game.When Mann was caught, Realclimate was set up to defend him. That is outrageous. The science code of honour assumes their colleagues are honesty and competent. This isn't pure science, it's a good part politics.
eric144144 1 year ago