Software error found, by Lord Christopher and science team that dis-proves Global Warming,

Global warming is proven by many different types of science- from tree rings, changing animal migrations, seasonal changes, ice cores and everything in between.

Whether or not man made CO2 has anything to do with climate change in general, the proof of climate change is all around you.

To deny that climate change is happening shows an amazing level of ignorance and arrogance.

In the same vein, to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SOLE cause is man made CO2 emissions is extremely arrogant, and dangerous to ignore potential other contributors (like increased activity on The Sun, or a natural cycle of the planet). My money's on a combination of all three, but I have an open mind to other possibilities. Planet Earth has been both much colder and much hotter in its recent (10,000 yrs or so) history.

The ultimate arrogance is to think that mankind can affect the weather on a planetary scale enough to stop or reverse climate change. It's too late. It's IS happening, and there's pretty much nothing we can do to stop it at this point.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jrod

A software error disproves anthropgenic warming? Really folks, deny ignorance dont embrace it.

Ah, I see you don't actually understand this topic or even what is being discussed here.
Makes a lot of sense now.

Says the person who says:

originally posted by: UKTruth
We do not yet know if this error in the model that underpins the temperature change based on CO2 doubling is a real error, but if it is then I would expect a big fight about it before it is accepted.

Monckton has been doing this # for years. They drag the guy before the U.S. Congress occasionally. Perhaps you should partake in his miracle tonic. No joke, he's a snake oil salesman in the literal sense.

e: gmoneystunt really beat me to this, props to you.

So how about this, UKTruth (or any other taker) - please explain how what Monckton says in that video destroys the idea of climate change?

Why not just wait for the peer review instead of trying to character assassinate him?
That's what a reasonable person would do.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Whether or not man made CO2 has anything to do with climate change in general, the proof of climate change is all around you.

To deny that climate change is happening shows an amazing level of ignorance and arrogance.

In the same vein, to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SOLE cause is man made CO2 emissions is extremely arrogant, and dangerous to ignore potential other contributors (like increased activity on The Sun, or a natural cycle of the planet). My money's on a combination of all three, but I have an open mind to other possibilities. Planet Earth has been both much colder and much hotter in its recent (10,000 yrs or so) history.

The ultimate arrogance is to think that mankind can affect the weather on a planetary scale enough to stop or reverse climate change. It's too late. It's IS happening, and there's pretty much nothing we can do to stop it at this point.

Climate change is real, but like you say, the question is how much (or little) does man contribute to it. That is still unknown, despite the so called consensus.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jrod

A software error disproves anthropgenic warming? Really folks, deny ignorance dont embrace it.

Ah, I see you don't actually understand this topic or even what is being discussed here.
Makes a lot of sense now.

Says the person who says:

originally posted by: UKTruth
We do not yet know if this error in the model that underpins the temperature change based on CO2 doubling is a real error, but if it is then I would expect a big fight about it before it is accepted.

Monckton has been doing this # for years. They drag the guy before the U.S. Congress occasionally. Perhaps you should partake in his miracle tonic. No joke, he's a snake oil salesman in the literal sense.

e: gmoneystunt really beat me to this, props to you.

So how about this, UKTruth (or any other taker) - please explain how what Monckton says in that video destroys the idea of climate change?

Why not just wait for the peer review instead of trying to character assassinate him?
That's what a reasonable person would do.

Guy has a history of doing this. That ain't character assassination.

I might be waiting a long time, given his history of not following through on things.

Please explain why what he described in the video is a valid critique.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Why not just wait for the peer review instead of trying to character assassinate him?

I'm trying to impugn his understanding of science at a professional level, and this is based on long-term experience.

That's what a reasonable person would do.

If he were new at this, that's what would happen. He isn't. He has a long-term history of doing similar BS and not actually understanding science, or perhaps intentionally mis-representing it to fool non-experts.

Given his history of blunders, he should be given no publicity until the peer-reviewed article is out---or as is most likely response from reviewers "rejected with major revisions required."

Given his history, it should be regarded as BS until proven otherwise. Because with Monckton, past performance did, and does predict future results.

Face it, no other 'contrarian' in some other area of science would be given any attention. Think about it, "British Lord destroys 100 years of Big Medical Establishment alarmism---error in EKG machine shows that it's the thymus, not the heart which pumps blood! ``I'm going to smoke a whole box of cigars, and not worry about all that alarmist baloney'', said the Fifth Earl of S#horpe."

originally posted by: babybunnies


In the same vein, to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SOLE cause is man made CO2 emissions is extremely arrogant, and dangerous to ignore potential other contributors (like increased activity on The Sun, or a natural cycle of the planet). My money's on a combination of all three, but I have an open mind to other possibilities. Planet Earth has been both much colder and much hotter in its recent (10,000 yrs or so) history.

All that is scientifically true. All of that, and more has been looked at by professional scientists, and they have considered all sorts of effects over the aeons. All of that is also under consideration and being measured today. Today, it's human emissions (of which CO2 is the most important, but not the only one) which is dominating the current climate change.

Notice, that human civilization has only existed in the last 10,000 years, and for most of that, the level of CO2 and temperature was very very stable. It stands to reason that messing around with that substantially is a catastrophically bad idea.

The ultimate arrogance is to think that mankind can affect the weather on a planetary scale enough to stop or reverse climate change. It's too late. It's IS happening, and there's pretty much nothing we can do to stop it at this point.

That is completely false, because the effect of mankind is a quantitative physics problem. Scientists measured the effect and discerned the impact. At one point in time (many decades ago), it was assumed that human emissions of CO2 would not really matter because the level in the atmosphere would be fully buffered by the oceans to maintain an equilibrium. It turns out that when we measured this experimentally, that idea was wrong, and with more careful study of the chemical & physical properties of the ocean and atmosphere we understand it much better.

Humans are fully capable of changing the biology of many fish species in the ocean---which is immense on a planetary scale. Humans are fully capable of changing the land use patterns across continents on a planetary scale.

There is certainly lots that humans could do to lower the effect of climate change NOW, because humans are responsible for the physical alterations which made that change. That is measured, physical fact.

Additionally, the actual physical impact (on a physics scale) of the influence of humans is indeed small, a couple of watts per square meter vs an average basline of roughly 300. Unfortuantely, as it turns out, the climate is very sensitive to even this small quantity of alteration.

Similar levels of change in solar insolation (Milankovitch cycles, though the distribution is different over latitudes as it's different physics) in a net cooling & cooling feedback direction lead to the Ice Ages. In Ice Ages, the average temperature was about 5 degrees less. The current temperature of the Earth on average is 287 Kelvin, which is the correct absolute physical scale. So the Ice Age was down 5/287, or 1.7%. Not really that big, right?

So no, humans can't alter the energy balance by 30%.

Well, during the Ice Age the ice was one mile thick in New York. Agriculture was impossible over almost all of the planet. Humans were barely surviving. Going an equivalent amount in the other direction, a Heat Age, could be as strong a change, and this is certainly within the physical capabilities of humans.

originally posted by: UKTruth

Climate change is real, but like you say, the question is how much (or little) does man contribute to it. That is still unknown, despite the so called consensus.

It is now known. It was once not known, and scientists then knew that it was not known.