25 thoughts on “Climate Change”

1. “Report by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley ”

   It’s hard to take Chris seriously on this subject.

   http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

   Dr Abraham, really tore him up.

   1. Meh. It’s just regurgitation of the narrative. The same one which is now crashing to the ground with the 15+ years of stasis in global temps.

   2. Way to ad hom.

      1. if you think it’s ad hominem attack, can you show how it’s
         an attack on the man? Prof Abraham really tore up Monckton
         on climate science on the science.

         1. “It’s hard to take X seriously on this subject” is an ad hominem argument, which doesn’t actually address the subject.

            1. it is hard to take someone seriously when their prior work has been shown to be misrepresentations, out of context or unfounded.

               That’s not an ad hominem, it’s a summary of the record.

            2. it is hard to take someone seriously when their prior work has been shown to be misrepresentations, out of context or unfounded

               By that standard, it’s impossible to take you seriously.

               Glad it’s not ad hominem.

            3. would your criticisms of Mann count as “Ad Hominem” attack?

            4. No.

         2. Question, does DCGuy even know what makes an idea a scientific theory? The answer will determine if DCGuy knows what science is. We already know that Chris Gerrib doesn’t know what science is.

   3. It’s easy to tear someone up if you get the last word. He quotes scientists who agree with him and ignores the ones who don’t, even if the latter are the mainstream. For instance, the main IPCC estimate is indeed for a very small sea-level increase, regardless of his cherry-picked quotes. The Medieval Warm Period is a hotly disputed topic, as anyone can see by googling it. Etc. It’s the same way all the way through the presentation. I didn’t get far enough to see if he talked about extreme weather events, but that’s the same too: Believers in AGW keep bringing them up even though the IPCC SREX said pretty clearly that we have more-or-less no evidence yet of any measurable change. I’m not enamored with Monckton’s science, but that doesn’t mean that I have to put up with anti-science activism from the other side. If you want to trust the IPCC when it agrees with you, don’t run to find the scientist who is more alarmed than they are when it doesn’t.

      1. Actually I shouldn’t have said, “It’s the same way all the way through the presentation,” since I didn’t go through all of it. It’s the same for the half that I saw.

      2. ” He quotes scientists who agree with him and ignores the ones who don’t”

         Actually what he does is he quotes Scientists who Monckton cites.

         Monckton accuses people of lying and the sources he uses don’t agree with Monckton’s conclusions.

      3. Nothing stops Lord Monckton from writing a detailed response to Abraham.

2. From that link:

   (2) Update

   Comment by Steve McIntyre posted at the WUWT article:

   Despite the opening sentence in the above post (“It’s official”), no such position was officially taken by the WFS. Indeed, many participants in the conference hold diametrically opposite views.

   1. How does that distinguish it from pronouncements by other science organizations in the past proclaiming it an incipient armageddon?

      1. Dozens of notable scientific societies have taken official positions backing the AGW hypothesis. No notable scientific society has taken an official position disputing the AGW hypothesis.

      2. Has the WFS rejected the hypothesis of AGW as a planetary emergency?

         That they are rewriting doesn’t mean they are rejecting.

   2. “(6) Some of the key things to remember about global warming!

      While cheering for their faction of scientists, laypeople often lose sight of the big picture — the key elements for making public policy about this important issue.

      The work of the IPCC and the major science institutes are the best guides for information about these issues.
      The major global temperature measurement systems tell — broadly speaking — the same story since the 1970s: two decades of cooling, two of warming, followed by a pause.
      This is consistent with the larger firm conclusions of climate scientists: two centuries of warming, coming in pulses (ie, waves), with anthropogenic factors becoming the largest (not the only) driver since roughly 1950.”

      1. That is gibberish.

      2. This is consistent with the larger firm conclusions of climate scientists: two centuries of warming, coming in pulses (ie, waves), with anthropogenic factors becoming the largest (not the only) driver since roughly 1950.

         It’s also consistent with scenarios which are a lot less threatening climate-wise. For something to be evidence, it not only has to be consistent with the theory, but favor the theory over other plausible rival theories. Here, we have to consider that maybe there is a short term climate periodic factor that is being confused with a long term one (AGW).

         1. if there was a short term factor we’d see that before.

3. As a newly-minted progressive Democrat, I will respond on behalf of Comrade Jim and Comrade Gerrib, with something equivalent to, but more succinct than Comrade dcguy:

   Oh, yeah!!!???!!!?

4. The whole thing was based on a simplistic conjecture based on a simple physical fact(CO2 gas absorbs IR at certain wavelengths) and expanded to “we’re all gunna die” by relying on a narrow historical scope, crap instrumental records contaminated by “adjustments” for which there is little physical basis and yet more wild conjecture and garbage science by people whose funding depends on it. Pitiful , really.

5. Wanna bet that Jim and DCGuy has no clue what science really is, instead, what they think of as “science” is whatever The Cathedral says. Note what Jim refers to as, “notable scientific societies”, in other words, The Cathedral.

Comments are closed.