Christopher Monckton’s 2007 presentation to the Cambridge (University) Union
Monckton begins by saying that he is going to present a perspective on climate change science that the audience will have not seen in the media, from politicians or in reports on the science. Like Al Gore, Monckton is not a scientist and he has as much right as Al Gore to talk about climate change. His scientific approach is one of enquiry rather than advocacy. He talks about correct scientific method and quotes T. H. Huxley on scepticism being the improver of knowledge:
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
He then explains that the debate is not about whether we can freely pollute the planet without care for our fellow creatures, or their or our future, or whether we are adding greenhouse gases to atmosphere, because we are, or that adding greenhouse gases doesn’t enhance temperature – because it does.
Monckton turns his attention to climate alarmism about what might happen if the planet becomes a little warmer, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
Monckton points out that Sir John Houghton, the first IPCC chairman, said, “unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Al Gore is quoted as saying “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.”
The science is being exaggerated to make people listen and there is political bias regardless of scientific truth. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in 2005, saying, “I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”
Monckton shows the error that he found in the supposedly highly scrutinised 2007 IPCC report on the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, where there are four wrong decimal points causing the figures to be in error by a facor of 10. See more here on page 14.
The IPCC is a ‘corporation’ that puts itself first. It therefore has an interest in maintaining its existence and status.
In order to demonstrate IPCC political bias, Monckton shows 3 statements that were in the 1995 IPCC draft report:
1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses.
2. No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.
3. Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.
Politicians ‘got at it’ and took out the above from the final report which stated:
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
The Consensus is questioned. Monckton suggests that the BBC has abandoned objectivity and then quotes a literature study of 539 papers published between 2004 and 2007, using the search term’ global climate change,’ where only one paper claimed catastrophe, but offered no evidence.
Hansen’s 1988 temperature predictions are examined. Scenario ‘C’ was based on CO2 in the atmosphere being stabilised, but the actual temperature trend has tracked this despite the non-stabilisation of CO2.
So are today’s temperatures unprecedented? Monckton talks about the Medieval Warm Period. The UN IPCC report of 1990 showed a clear Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age (LIA), but the IPCC 2001 report showed the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph 6 times in colour with no MWP. So how was this achieved? Data showing a hockey stick shape from Sheep Mountain in California was given 390 times the weighting of the data Mayberry Slough in Arizona, which had a MWP.
The tree ring data set that included MWP was left out, despite the researchers saying that it was included in the publications of 1998 and 1999. It was actually in a computer file marked ‘censored data.’ Monckton asserted that researchers should make both data and methods available to be checked by other scientists. The US National Academy of Sciences panel described the hockey stick as plausible at best, and the ‘validation skill’ not significantly different from zero.
Monckton then provides some of the evidence for a warm MWP:
Data from 6000 bore holes give a rough idea that there was a warm MWP, Stalagmites from the Austria Alps and Southern Africa, Sediments from Sombre lake, Signy Island in Maritime Antarctica, and Lake Huguangyan, Leechow, South China. Formanifera from the NorthWestern Arabian Sea, Oman. The Sargasso sea, North Island NZ, sediment core from Spanish Pyrenees, pollen profile from Northern Fennoscandia, 3 examples of glacial variations from Swiss Alps. Canada, British Columbia, Azores, two from coastal Peru, the summit of Greenland ice sheet. He then shows a graphic of a timescale sensitive reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature showing the MWP and the LIA. Next he shows a Sediment-based treeline for the species ‘Zelkova Carpinifolia’ demonstrating the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP. He presents a slide of a 1340AD tree stump in California, well above today’s tree-line.
Monckton points out that warmer is better – most species live in the tropics and hardly any at the poles. He concludes that, because there was a MWP up to 3C warmer than today:
1. Today’s temperatures are not exceptional
2. Nature caused medieval climate warming
3. There was no medieval climate cataclysm
4. Nature may be causing most warming today
5. Climate catastrophe is not looming or likely
He then moves on to talk about natural causes of climate change where his attention inevitably turns to the sun.
First he mentions William Herschel who in 1801 noticed an inverse correlation between the number of sunspots in the 11-year cycle and the price of grain. He then quotes Solanki (2004) who claimed that the past 70 years of solar activity exceptional and similar to 8000 years ago. During the past 11400 years the sun has spent only 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all earlier higher periods of activity were shorter than the current episode.The Sun has been more active than at any time since the last ice age
Monckton then shows a graph for 1880 – 1990 of CO2 and temperature mismatch, pointing out that there is not a good correlation.
A graph of solar cycle length plotted against temperature is a better match – Solanki/Fligg (1999), as is the Central England Temperature (CET) series plotted against sunspot number, for1750 to 2000.
The next slide is from Neff et al (2001), showing Monsoon activity tracking solar activity, followed by a graph of solar activity versus temperature for the Arctic (Soon, 2004).
So, how much influence can the sun have? A slide of the CET, the world’s longest instrumental temperature series, shows a 2.2C rise in just 35 years, 1700 to 1735, suggesting that the sun was the cause of the recovery from the Maunder Minimum. Monckton concedes that this is evidence from one place and one temperature series, but it is evidence nevertheless. He then shows a slide of the rising trend in solar activity from 1715 attributed to NASA’s David Hathaway, followed by conclusions from the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004:
1. Solar changes cause most climate change
2. Solar cycles are 11, 80, and 200 years long
3. The Sun caused today’s global warming
4. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual
5. Today’s global warming will end soon
So how do we distinguish natural from anthropogenic warming?
CO2 and temperature is not a good match as we have already seen.
A good match is temperature anomalies for 1979 to 2001 and tropical outgoing long wave radiation. Why? The sun is incident on the tropics – the azimuth angle is 90 degrees – so most heating is in the tropics – the atmospheric transport engine takes heat away from tropics to northern latitudes and to a lesser extent southern latitudes. So, the tropics are the place to look for a ‘hot spot’ of anthropogenic warming. Monckton shows the IPCC 2007 modelled climate forcings for anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, aerosols, ozone, plus solar and volcanic. If they are combined into a single graph, there should be an anthropogenic fingerprint or hot spot in the tropics. However, the fingerprint is absent from the actual troposphere data, or shows only a small signal at best, suggesting a small effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Monckton then discusses some of reasons why computer models are wrong and can’t provide proof of anthropogenic global warming, whereas a mathematical model of the pythagorous theorem can provide absolute proof. Physical sciences with inadequate data cannot provide proof. He quotes Syun-Ichi Akasofu as saying, “No supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming.”
Next, Monckton discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the huge range of temperature changes published in the literature for a doubling of CO2. Monckton’s own calculation, based on IPCC 2007, is 1.6C for a doubling of CO2, but the IPCC says 3C. He points out that Svante Arrhenius calculated a 4C to 8C temperature change for a doubling of CO2 in 1896, but in 1906, he had the Stefan-Boltzmann equation available to him and re-calculated everything to give 1.6C.
With the wide range of temperature predictions in mind, Monckton looks at the constraints on CO2, which mean that it is not a major factor in climate:
In 1750, CO2 was 0.03% by volume in the atmosphere; in 2007 it is about 0.04%, a change of +0.01%. The IPCC has reduced CO2 forcing by one-fifth in 12 years (1995 to 2007), yet it has kept climate sensitivity at 3C.
Monckton shows a graph of CO2 v temperature over 600,000 years where CO2 and temperature often go in opposite directions, suggesting CO2 is not the main driver of global temperature. The IPCC admits that CO2 went up to about 6000 ppmv in the Cambrian period and the global average temperature was 22C. He claims CO2 residency time is about 5 to 10 years from various publications. The IPCC claim 50 to 200 years based on “the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly,” (IPCC 1990). Monckton considers that the IPCC definition has nothing to do with a genuine residency time.
Monckton’s conclusions on the constraints on CO2 as a cause of global temperature change are:
1. There is very little additional CO2 in the air
2. CO2 has few principle absorption bands
3. At the surface, water vapour dominates CO2
4. CO2’s effect diminishes logarithmically
5. CO2 is not potent, only 1/23 the effect of CH4
6. There’s no tropical mid-troposphere hot spot
7. CO2’s atmospheric residency time is short
8. CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature
He then moves on to some of the ’35 errors’ in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ which I won’t dwell on as they are explained in detail here.
Monckton then discusses CO2 emissions saying that China is the one to watch; if the UK reduced emissions to zero, then they would be made up by just the increase in Chinese emissions in less than 2 years. Apply that to Europe, US and Canada, and then China plus India would make up the difference in their own emissions growth in 10 to 15 years. Shutting down the western economy will therefore not make any difference.
He presents a graphic of child mortality up to the age of 5 per thousand born, against CO2 emissions demonstrates that the higher the CO2 emissions per capita, the lower the child mortality. Population increase is faster in developing countries – denying developing CO2 emissions will likely increase their populations.
Monckton then attacks what he calls the murderous ‘Precautionary Principle’ as an expedience used by environmentalist lobby to push policies that would otherwise be unacceptable. He looks at two previous global scares: one real, and one bogus where the policies were wrong because of the effect of pressure groups.
The first is HIV, where he says the correct policy would have been to isolate cases in order to prevent spread of the disease, but this was regarded as totally unacceptable.
The result: 25 million died, with 40 million infected worldwide. 0.7% infected in the US, 1% is the epidemic threshold. 7.5% infected south of the Sahara.
The second is Malaria, where the 3 letters ‘DDT’ are absent from IPCC ramblings in its latest report.
Before DDT was ‘banned,’ there were 50,000 deaths per year from Malaria. After the ban, there were 1,000,000 deaths per year. As a result, excess deaths are put at between 30 and 50 million.
On 15th September 2006, the DDT ban was lifted by WHO. Dr Arata Kochi or WHO said, “Quite often in this field politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based on the science and the data.”
Monckton then addresses the claim by Gore and others that there are ‘moral issues’ in the climate change debate. He agrees that there are – exaggeration, alarmism, false claims, false claims of consensus, to allow insertion of false claims or data into reports by politicians, to exalt computer models over data, lack of objectivity, inflicting energy starvation, false denial of past temperatures higher than today’s, claiming extreme weather events are caused by humans, and so on, are all moral issues.
He concludes with reference to the human race, “We must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. We have failed them and failed them before. We must not fail again.”
After the applause dies down, there is time for a number of good questions, which Monckton handles well. In my view the presentation was well prepared, well referenced and eloquently delivered, with emotional pleas over the genuine moral issues. Christopher Monckton comes across as a sincere man who is persuaded by objective science. The cause of climate realists has been enhanced by his involvement in the climate change debate, and this DVD is recommended viewing for those seeking an antidote to the daily dose of climate alarmism in the media, or an alternative scientific perspective.
The DVD is available here.
18th February 2008
Paul Biggs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thank goodness for Coby Beck.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
Monkton debunked by Beck (numbered from top to bottom)
Para 1
1 10
2 11
3 12
Para 2
1,2 13
3,4 12 again
Para 3
1,2,3 45
4,5 12 yet again
Para 4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Actually not done well by Coby. However please read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Cannot believe that anyone would produce anything like this that is just a simple rehash of debunked arguments.
of the 8 constraints mentioned, most are true but
irrelevant.
But number 8 is false. 20th century correlation between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature is about 0.9 (1.0 is maximum).
For number 4, logarithmic functions increase, not “diminish” — it’s just that at higher concentrations the increase is slower than if it was directly proportional. It is the effect of each extra bit of CO2 that diminishes. This is part of mainstream climate science. Words that are
mathematically equivalent appear in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper.
For the glacial cycles “CO2 is not the main driver of global temperature” is true. The role of CO2 was to amplify temperature changes initiated by variations in the earth’s orbit. This is why the changes in CO2 start later than the temperature changes. This view has been mainstream climate science at least since 1991 when the Vostok ice core data were published.
“Before DDT was ‘banned,’ there were 50,000 deaths per year from Malaria. After the ban, there were 1,000,000 deaths per year. As a result, excess deaths are put at between 30 and 50 million.”
I think that this sort of sums up the whole lecture. If anyone can have this view even in the face of the fact, supported by documentary evidence, that DDT was never banned for malaria control and then go so far to perpetuate a lie of this magnitude really shows what a dishonest person Monkton really is and how much contempt he really deserves.
Paul very difficult to discuss what we have not viewed. Next time try to be more obsequious though 🙂
But maybe taking one issue and risking a possible a “discussion”
How optimum was the Medieval Optimum. Great for Celtic viticulturists and agricultural Vikings but what about droughts in China and the Americas? What’s the global climatic scorecard? Is our view of the MWP Euro-centric?
It says something when the global warming nuts have a site on how to shout down skeptics. They’re so afraid of debate. At least Ender & Company didn’t accuse Monckton of being on the payroll for Exxon, which must be on the list.
It’s a sad day when a narcissist like Monckton is taken seriously, and scientists are ridiculed. He’s not in it because of Exxon, he’s in it for his ego.
“1. Today’s temperatures are not exceptional”
Today’s temperatures are not the main issue. But any idiot who actually read the IPCC report would realise that.
An aside.
All trances of Celtic culture were obliterated on Continental Europe (except for the Bretons) by the late 5th century with the incursions of Teutonic Franks, Visigoths etc. – ditto in (now) England by Angles and Saxons. By 1000 AD (MWP), the Celts were forgotten.
In they heyday, the Celts loved wine (as they do today), but it was mostly imported from the south.
Beer was everywhere the drink of home production.
I find it amazing that alarmists constantly question the motivations of skeptics yet never consider the less than savoury motivations of the alarmits (fame, peer pressure, funding, etc).
For example, Hansen seems to have a developed a Messiah complex.
I was actually surprised when I compare the negative reviews of Warming Swindle to those of AIH. Even though Swindle go some facts wrong and misrepresented the views of one of the interviewees it was suprisingly more accurate than AIH which had numereous egregious errors.
I suspect Moncton’s film will similarily stand up fairly well when it comes to getting the facts right.
DDT was banned in the USA and I’m left wondering how WHO re-introduce something that they were already using on 15/9/2006? This is an example of how scientific exaggeration or fraud results in the wrong policy.
Anyone who has to quote Coby Beck or RC is really scraping the barrel!
As for the MWP – the IPCC believed it until the hockey stick came along – we don’t know how warm it was, but then as now, there were regional variations. The ‘hockey stick’ flaws are well known, so it isn’t a definitive representation of paleoclimate – and that’s me being kind!
If anyone can prove that a doubling of CO2 would increase global temperatures by 1.6C or more, then bring it on!
A CO2 driven climate catastrophe is a computer modelled fantasy.
Raven got me wondering.
Monckton & SPPI
“Responding to Monckton’s claims that global warming was not predominantly man-made, Professor John Pyle, Director of the Centre for Atmospheric Science in Cambridge, spoke to Varsity saying that “Monckton was completely and utterly wrong … [he] goes completely against the prevailing wisdom of atmospheric scientists as expressed through the IPCC” adding that he has no regard for “the authority of hundreds and hundreds of scientists” who work in this area. When asked what we should do when confronted with such people, Pyle said “we have to slap them down”.
http://inel.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/american-think-tank-finances-swindle-and-apocalypse-no-for-uk-and-us-students/
“Monckton has received funding from a Washington-based conservative think tank of which he is chief policy adviser, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), to create a film, Apocalypse No, which will parody Gore, showing Monckton presenting a slide show making an attack on climate change science”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills
Jeeez! We’re back to the funding red herring!
Imagine going “against the prevailing wisdom of atmospheric scientists as expressed through the IPCC” – who would do such a terrible thing?
“the authority of hundreds and hundreds of scientists” Wow!
So, who would fund such a DVD – must be some crazed public enemy number one?
Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre is fresh back from his talk, invited by Judith Curry:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2708
Excellent 9mb ppt presentation. I particularly like the slide showing the relationship between the ‘independent confirmations’ of the HS.
Still, this isn’t science as we know it – it’s ‘climate science.’
More sea ice then ever in the arctic, and thicker , with Polar Bears around Greenland starving because there is TOO MUCH ICE affecting their normal feeding, with bears coming ashore to raid garbage dumps and c..Where is the WWF and Gore now?? PB’s are supposed to be drowning through lack of ice!!
Also more and more reports of the bitter NH winter keep rolling in each day….
And what’s happened to our summer? We await the BoM’s Feb. report….Should be breathtaking..
Paul – “Anyone who has to quote Coby Beck or RC is really scraping the barrel!”
If that were true quoting Climate Audit or CO2Science would be like scraping under the barrel hoping something meaningful had dripped out.
Coby’s list just saves the tedium of writing out the whole rebuttal from the real science that we have posted at least a thousand times before to these tired old arguments.
Sid, check the cryosphere website http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The Arctic is more than 500 000km down on “average” and has probably come close to peaking. The ice is also exceptionally thin, check these satellite images http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?id=11892&Lang=eng
The ice is obviously young (and thin) the old ice shows as white.
But hey, lets not let evidence get in the way of a good story.
Having read some of what he has to say at his site, I believe Coby Beck is a *****.
CO2 only correlates with temperature for the 19 years from 1979 to 1998 but only if we ignore volcanic aerosols. Factor in volcanic aerosols and the period of correlation drops back to at least 1992 (13 years) while the actual period of no correlation (ie cooling) extends for 16 years from 1992 to 2008.
Toss in the preceeding 40 year period of non-correlation from 1939 to 1979 and it is crystal clear that the climate muddlers are basing their work on only 13 of the past 69 years. Talk about cherry picking.
OK nasty anti-AGW types – how about some decent debate for a change – note what your own mentor and guru has said:
Steve McIntyre says …
“I’ll discuss blog manners and perceptions on another occasion and mention only one point right now. I regularly discourage people from being angry in their posts for a couple of reasons – even if you feel that the angry outburst is justified, it never convinces anyone of anything; and it gives people an excuse to ignore non-angry posts. Regular readers tend to filter out the angry posts and pay attention to the more substantive posts. However consider the possibility that visitors have the reverse filter – they tend to pay attention to the angry posts and ignore the substantive ones. As people know, I’ve modified my attitudes towards comments over time and now try to delete angry posts when I notice them (and these angry posts are 99% of the time condemning climate scientists and the horse that they rode in on, rather than this blog). It places an unreasonable burden on me to weed out these angry posts and I re-iterate one more time my request that readers refrain from making angry posts as they are entirely counter-productive.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2708
You will note McIntrye to his credit lists Realclimate, James Annan, Stoat, and Tamino as “weblogs and resources”. These sites are obviously partisan but simply to dismiss them as bottom of the barrel is simply SILLY.
You will also note his reports of the cordiality of McIntyre’s treatment during his Georgia Tech visit and his own surprise and his interest in some of the research being conducted there.
And you might take the time to examine his own take on policy issues in his Powerpoint presentation.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/gatech.ppt
So how about a mutual attempt in 2008 at cleaning up the quality of posts and ad homs.
Got a good laugh from that one Luke. By the way ALL sites of ANY persuasian are partisan.
McIntyre is a good guy, and entitled to his opinion. RC have sunk to new lows recently, so the days are gone when I considered them to be a useful resource. Coby Beck isn’t ‘a moron’ – far from it, but he’s just another cheer leader for ‘big warming.’ James Annan and Stoat do sometimes produce stuff that is objective, but some of ‘Tamino’s’ recent antics have let him/her down.
Luke missed out the attacks on Judith Curry (who I have admired for some time as a ‘consensus scientist’ who is prepared to give her opinion in blogs) for allowing McIntyre a platform.
We’d have a better idea of the true status of the ‘consensus’ if many more working climate scientists were willing to express their honest opinions rather than remaining silent.
Mt T said:
“But hey, lets not let evidence get in the way of a good story.”
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
From the link:
“It’s nice to know that the ice is recovering,” Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.
“That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year.”
“The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase,” he said.
OK Mucko be tedious – “partisan to the AGW viewpoint (understood)” then.
And Paul so so so disappointing as we could heap all that protest, indignation and abuse on the anti-AGW sites in spades.
I mean do rave on. Come off it mate.
As I said – how about some improvement in overall standards – sticking to the old bitchy bitching isn’t getting anywhere.
Most climate scientists have heads down and bums up working not ranting in blogs, so don’t try the old conspiracy line. It’s so passe and transparent.
I don’t visit Real Climate, Annon, Stoat, or Tamino (since he started his heavy handed censorship policy).
So do they list Climate Audit, Watts up with that, the reference frame, Junkscience, or this blog as resources?
Were Easter Island’s monoliths carved during the MWP? Bet they were.
Polynesian’s first settled NZ during the MWP.
I wonder is there any archeologic record of the apex of Aboriginal society in Aus during the MWP?
Here is another native American monument dating to the MWP. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/serp/hd_serp.htm
No listing by the UNESCO world heritage site, but it’s certainly a candidate.
It seems to me that Monkton is getting the same crass treatment the Late John Daly received from these AGWers. What always stands out is that AGW forums always attack the man where as the skeptic sites discuss the science.
“Most climate scientists have heads down and bums up working not ranting in blogs, so don’t try the old conspiracy line. It’s so passe and transparent.”
Of the 1800 plus participants in IPCC WG1, only about 10% (IIRC) responded to the Annan/Pielke Sr/Brown simple questionnaire, which I guess was anonymous.
I’m not suggesting they participate in blogs – it’s just nice that the likes of Judith Curry put an opinion on display, even if I don’t like it, or it is contradicted by some of the published science. Anyway, we see what happened to Judith Curry just for allowing Steve McIntyre a platform. I know consensus doesn’t matter from a science point of view, because it’s a question of who is wrong and who is right, rather than numbers, but I would still like to know the opinions of scientists, even if opinion is given anonymously.
Sure, we know what RC say, UEA, Pielke Sr, Christy, Spencer, Shaviv etc but they are only a small sample. I maintain that the ‘consensus’ remains undefined.
Gavin, such a convincing post in using “we have to slap them down” as evidence of the level of scientific acument of AGWers. So, anyone who practices the scientific method of questioning should be slapped down?
Well, you better be careful who you try this on. Try it on me and you might find out very quickly that I slap back….and very hard.
You people are really pathetic.
Sam: So, it turns out Monckton is just another gun for hire.
Hardly scientific hey
Raven, I was responding to Syd’s claim that there was more sea ice than ever. It may be bigger than last year, but that is not “more than ever”.
Gavin two can play at that game.
You may remember that when Al Gore was Vice President, he made himself “godfather” of NASA for several years.
He was influential in steering a huge “next generation shuttle” contract to political friends, and played a large part in steering the bulk of the International Space Station contracts to the Russians.
Al Gore presumably could have influenced NASA budgets to concentrate more on global warming models, and less on NASA’s actual mission–space.
Is it just a coincidence that a majority of the most outspoken global warming alarmists are employed by NASA GISS? Here are some examples of what I mean.
1. James Hansen is head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
2. Gavin Schmidt Real Climate alarmist – employee of James Hansen at GISS.
3. Gristmill alarmist Andrew Dessler says he did his post-doctoral work at NASA Goddard.
4. RealClimate alarmist Eli Rabbet is said to be Josh Halpern:
Prof. Halpern is also the Co-Director of the NASA Faculty Fellowship Program at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD in odd numbered years. This program supports about 30 faculty each year to do summer research at Goddard.
The great thing about being American, we have the freedom of information act. If there is documentation of Gore meddling to create the Giss warming crew, we will find it.
James: Lets’s stay on topic.
I just cancelled an appointment so I can enjoy another chuckle.. How do you intend to deal with the likes of Professor Pyle back at Cambridge University?
http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/staff/jap.html
Yanks peddling on blogs are too easy hey
It may surprise you to know James that the great thing about being in another 70 countries around the world is that they have FOI legislation too. How about that. Swedish invention I think.
And what a coincidence that so many climate shonks are paid off by oil companies and are ex-tobacco shills.
The great thing about being an Aussie is to realise that yanks are full of it. Especially Californications.
Now James if there is any evidence that you’re actually an alien or a replicant we’ll find it !! – have you ever taken the Blade Runner VK test for replicants. Have you ever eaten boiled dog perhaps ?
This is why you’re having delusions James – it’s the chip in your head. The neo-cons have put it there.
Well thanks Luke. I’ve been wondering about that ringing in my ears for a while.
SO you are saying that Hansen, Schmidt, Dessler, and Halpirn; the prevaricators of RealClimate, Gristmill, and Rabett Run, are not hired guns of GISS?
James: Did you notice the good company our DVD critic keeps at the Royal Society?
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=5765
Luke: Lets have a turkey shoot round the blogs
“Hired guns” – err – mate they work there. It is a science institution not the CIA. Presumably they are sick of rabble rousers misrepresenting science and also wish to communicate their work. It refreshing that real climate scientists would bother – much of the climate science effort goes without public involvement. Gavin’s list an example of big names that aren’t very public. You won’t get many of these guys and girls blogging.
Gavin – serious list of scientists.
Luke
Since when have you ever demonstrated an understanding of science?
Louis – welcome back – thinking of chancing your arm again now the real geologists have gone away.
Man this debate is getting so old. There is only one thing I know for sure. I will not be forced into a lower standard of living in order to combat global warming.
All of the suggested actions that need to happen to reduce CO2 are not realistic. I dont live in a huge house. It is 1500 sqft. I will not move to a 100 sqft house. I will not drive my car less. The underlying agenda for SOME people who advocate AGW is to control the masses. You see these people hate man and all the comfortable lives we have in the Western socities.
So quit telling me how to live my life.
I’m to the point now where I have stop listening to any of you scientist.
I will contuine to release CO2 into the atmosphere try and stop me.
Live your lives people. Your time on Earth is so short 100 years max if your lucky. Quit worring about what will happen 100, 200 year in the future.
What a load of dross. Who’s beating on your door. Checked the price of your food lately?
m14brian – “Live your lives people. Your time on Earth is so short 100 years max if your lucky. Quit worring about what will happen 100, 200 year in the future.”
Luke – please do not feed the troll – they bite.
Luke – please do not feed the troll – they bite.
You just did.
I can’t wait to see all you moonbats running in place and changing tact now that we’re ready to enter a significant cooling cycle. Here it is:
No serious scientist ever said it would continue to warm or that warming was the only consequence of climate change.
Warming makes temperatures get cold. Just like all the extra water vapor going into the atmosphere (you know, that pesky water vapor that will generate the runaway greenhouse effect) will cause draughts and people are going to run out of water.
I can’t wait to hear all of you dead-chicken shakers start your hummana-hummana backtracking. Of course, I am fully aware all of you will deny everything because of your condition of terminal cognitive dissonance. Maybe you should just up your meds.
I’m not much for conspiracy type stuff however this is interesting
>whois realclimate.org
…
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
then see who you get to when you follow links
All you AGWers have to do is release all your data,Mann and Hanson included,undertake a full study of all ground stations,that means photographing and logging each one. both sides can then sit down together and attempt some honest science.
The skeptics are happy to have open debate, the one and only time the AGWers debated openly with their top gun Gavin Schmidt they lost miserably. They have not dared debate AGW publicly since.
Monkton`s Cambridge lecture lasted over 4 hours, do you think these top undergraduates would have stayed that long if the lecture were rubbish.