 willhelm says: The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%; CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100; Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly; The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500; The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated; “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years; Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling; The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%; Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed; In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years. Methane is the real culprit anyways. Plants don't take that in, and cows let it out! Sooo... the cows eat the plants and more methane is released. I blame the cows.. Think I'll have a big, juicy grilled ribeye steak in retaliation! The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States based organization that is skeptical of human induced climate change. It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop. Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy First of all, I am not sure if this paper was truly peer reviewed. The editors say they invited him to write an article for a debate on global warming. Such articles are less likely to be peer reviewed than regular scholarly articles (I am not saying Monckton's article definitely was or was not peer reviewed; I am just saying it is not clear). Second, as far as I can tell Monckton has no scientific training. Third, people interested in learning more about the competence of Christopher Monckton to weigh in on climate issues may be interested in these clips: [[url=http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/BE165D22-A76A-4417-85F7-AB0... Notice the two previous comments that fume in total and perplexing inability to apply a logical comment to this clip. Nevermind that lophatt cannot name 5 scientists independent of the IPCC that support man-caused global warming and the scientific basis for those scientist's beliefs. Nevermind that they would never say Al Gore is not qualified to speak about global warming. Monkton proved in a court of law, in England, that the global warming epic 'An Inconvenient Truth' should be classified as propaganda because it was full of dozens of lies. Why would they need to lie. tsk tsk. Also, nevermind that once again we have a clip that provides evidence and a scientific basis to not believe in ... Monkton proved in a court of law, in England, that the global warming epic 'An Inconvenient Truth' should be classified as propaganda because it was full of dozens of lies.No doubt Willhelm will accuse me of being "off-topic", but here is a quotation from the judge in the Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and Skills case that Willhelm refers to: I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: Oh, so now the judge, a man who has no scientific training, can speak to the veracity of climate science? You are raving mad.  willhelm said:All I am saying is that by your own criteria An Inconvenient Truth has been proven to be accurate. No I am not. I am saying that it has been given the same designation as propaganda. There has been nothing proven accurate about An Inconvenient Truth in it claims of anthropogenic global warming. Nothing! You are beyond irrational at this point. Please spare me your interpretation of what I said. You cannot interpret Dick and Jane for crying out loud. Geez. Willhelm. Poor you. After coming to know about the content your replies to those who voiced their opinions and shared their research on the subject matter dealt with in your clip, blind and deaf people of the whole world will be fighting to kick your ass to tell you: "wake up, open your eyes, listen!!!" Katrina is not enough? Travel a bit my friend, and listen to old people, they will all tell you the same thing: winter is no longer as predictable as it used to be, summers too, extremes in weather conditions are getting even stranger. I live in Mauritius, in the tropics of the southern hemisphere, and we are now getting cyclonic conditions, which normally visit us only in summer, in the winter... Poor you. More brilliance. I'll just get right on that asking old people thing. The laughter this loony-town brings to me. I love it. The intelligent mind knows what I wrote above is enough for the discerning mind to see this organization is everything Wilhelm is trying to be. Why he chooses this deluded path leaves me wondering who is paying him? This comment may seem like a conspiracy theory, but the government and these think tanks do pay cranks to post daily trying to change public opinion. Nobody is that warped he's being paid one way or another to post this tripe. As he screams propaganda just consider the source. No I am not. I am saying that it has been given the same designation as propaganda.Actually I don't see that in the Dimmock decision. The judge never refers to AIT as propaganda. He says there are 9 "'errors'"--and he deliberately qualifies errors by putting single quotation marks around the term because he really means there are 9 disputed points--and he ruled that the state had to accompany AIT with a Guidance Note that lay out these 9 points of dispute. But I don't see the judge designating the film as propaganda. On the whole he seems very favorable to the film. First of all, I am not sure if this paper was truly peer reviewed.I called it. The Monckton paper has a disclaimer that it was NOT peer-reviewed. SPPI was simply incorrect to say this was a peer-reviewed paper. Monckton is claiming his paper was vetted by a physicist. Although I note that "peer review" implies review by more than one scholar. And from Monckton's descritpion, the reviewer acted more like an editor, suggesting changes for clarification, than a real reviewer, scrutinizing claims made in the paper. Whatever you feel you need to say about Mockton or whatever ridiculous need you have of regularly bashing individuals changes nothing about the facts Monkton produces as they weigh against the lies Al Gore told. You are just huffing and puffing. When you stretch the truth to that degree it becomes transparent, I won't ask what you are really trying to do, it's obvious. You're a bad man. about the facts Monkton produces as they weigh against the lies Al Gore told.Just because you want to believe that Monckton has disproved global warming does not make it so. LoPhatt said:LoPhatt, let's avoid these personal attacks which create more heat than light. Thanks. He knows it, but you are right, and I am sorry Wilhelm, but you are still a jerk. Is that ok? JK, you are such a petty waste. If LoPhatt wants to call me a bad man, that is NOT a personal attack. If I were to call you a waste of human skin or post personal information and implied threats, that would be a personal attack. I think if you are concerned with "light" you might want to be honest. There is no bigger liar in Clipmarks than yourself. Thank you, but you are not a jerk or a bad man you're just mislead. And then there is the misled trying to lead. Most of what you know about the IPCC is from political documents that do not come from scientists. Do you know anything about the science? You have not once provided evidence, scientific theory, or general science supporting the fact that man causes global warming. It is foolish for you to suggest someone does not understand the science. The IPCC is political - not science. The original IPCC reports documented some very good science and for the most part they still do. However, the AGW is not what the IPCC looks into supporting. It is now taken for granted by the IPCC the global climate is affected by man's activities, so the are intent on proving that because most nations have a stake in ho... The funny thing is I don't have to be told the climate is changing, I am living it. I see the changing patterns over the years and I here the factual alarming details which in no way can be misleading. So tell someone else what you choose to believe. I full well see what's going on politically and it resembles you. Of course the climate is changing. There has NEVER been a time when it wasn't. It was changing long before the invention of the SUV. It was changing long before the industrial revolution. It was changing long before the pyramids were built. It was changing long before the invention of the wheel. It was even changing before man discovered how to create fire. It has always been changing and it always will, no matter how many billions or trillions are spent on snake oil solutions. The funny thing is I don't have to be told the climate is changing, IWell, this proves 2 things. 1. You do not understand that the climate ALWAYS changes and the changes vary from location to location. 2. You cannot possibly personally feel or detect a .7 degree global increase in temperature. You saying that is akin to saying you can detect the rise in a lake by pouring a bathtub full of water into it. It also proves a third thing - that you do not care about the evidence and science because you have your mind made up and only rely on your own personal feelings and bias. You guys are lost in a trap of your own making. You want climate change to be a hoax so bad you accuse me of what you are obviously guilty of. I am convinced, yes, but you remain uncertain because it fits your agenda. Everybody is convinced except a few whacked right wing nut jobs. You don't need me to point out the facts, the facts are irrelevant to you, you will ignore them as you have every time. I will say it again. The real climate scientists know the problem is urgent and needs immediate attention. The reason you choose to take the opposite stance is beyond me. All I intend to do is shoot down crap that has nothing to do with the facts, like you bringing that 1997 petition. Why don't you research things first? I can't help but believe you are on a mission and will use any ammunition that looks good regardless of the facts. I have no need to help you understand. I only choose to shoot down your CRAP. You're lost, I owe you nothing. If you would use the Internet in a more objective way you might learn something. LOL! Now there is a sign of denial. You admit you do not need facts, will not provide scientific proof of anthropogenic warming (because there is not any), you ignore scientists and choose to believe the U.N.(not scientists) and Al Gore (not a scientist). Then, to cap it all off you say the facts which are indisputable are not true. Why do you say we want global warming to not be true? I think global warming has been somewhat true. I just do not believe man has a single thing to do with it. I guess your point reveals something about you, though. Do you want global warming to be true and do you want it to be the case that man is responsible? What purpose does that serve you? Why can you no... I didn't write any of the climate science I just read it. From what I read we are in for a wild ride. From what I've read, I also believe man is primarily at fault for the change. Either you're reading material I don't have access to, or you're reading more into it than what's actually there. Politics would play a part in both cases. So which is it? I didn't write any of the climate science I just read it.I would just love for you to pass some of it on to me. Specifically, what individual scientists support agw? What are the scientific principles they base their conclusions on? Where do they observe an anthropogenic signature in global temperature fluctuations? Why do they suggest their findings are substantial given that nothing has occurred that is outside of Earth's natural variability? How do they explain that CO2 increase follows warming, it does not precede it? Also, why do the scientists have to beg for debate on this issue while a handful of scientists, politicians, and global socialists say the debate is ove... EPA welcomes 51 new partners as Climate Leaders, breaking the 200 mark. In addition, eight companies took the next step in the partnership by announcing new greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions goals. Together, EPA's Climate Leaders represent more than ten percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and have pledged to prevent estimated GHG emissions equivalent to nine million cars annually. "EPA's Climate Leader partners are proving that businesses don't need to break the bank to do what's good for the environment," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "These leading companies are reducing their climate footprints in cost-effective ways." Climate Leaders, launched in 2002, is a volu... So? What does that have to do with real science? Looks more to me like some companies doing good business by jumping on the global warming alarmism train and trying to cash in the same way the Goracle is doing. "Climate leaders"? what? LOL The seas capture heat and hold it. As temperatures rise, the sea will absorb heat from the atmosphere, causing it to expand and therefore creating sea level rises. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/mean-sea-level-rise.gif Going over it is just not enough, you must choose to absorb it. |
View the Top Clips from July 17, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
