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

Nice click bait...but it is void of science.

Given the number of stars and flags you got tells me we have a lot of gullible folks who want to believe anything that meshes with their confirmation bias.

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

a reply to: subject x

Most climate scientists are funded by various governments. Majority of them spend time teaching classes and just regurgitating whatever is told to them. Every once in awhile they may need to find some data on there own, but it is generally just one variable, e.g. CO2, and easy to work into their theories.

a reply to: ventian

Way to use the fallacy of hasty generalization there.

What is more likely, thousands and thousands of scientists who dont get paid much are in cahoots with each other to push the problem of anthropgenic climate change OR a handful of companies who are vested in the petroleum and coal industries realize that addressing anthropgenic climate will hurt their billions of profits have come together to confuse the average person so they do not believe this is real and thus not demanding action being taken to curb our CO2 emissions?

It is an undisputed fact that CO2 levels are rising quickly as a direct result of our addiction to burning fossil fuels for energy. To pretend there will not be consequences is ignorant.

a reply to: jrod

thousands of scientists who dont get paid much are in cahoots

Exactly that. They may be unknowingly in cahoots, but they are definitely needing money and climate change has been one of the easiest ways to get grants for the past few decades. Dating back to the global cooling scare when I was a kid.

It is an undisputed fact that CO2 levels are rising quickly as a direct result of our addiction to burning fossil fuels for energy. To pretend there will not be consequences is ignorant."

Agreed completely. Pollution is a bad thing. The constant destruction of our Earth for profit is terrible. Man made climate change, on the other hand, has been a way to get people who cannot look at more than one variable at a time to hand over money to appease their egos.

The scientists and mathematicians involved are credible, at least in terms of their CV's and historical work, and make up part of the scientific community that disagrees with the 'fake' consensus on global warming.

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.

At least it is good to hear more form the other side of the argument. Only proper debate and review will yield the truth, not the brow beating and insults at those that question the 'favoured' view.

a reply to: ventian

So you believe big oil and big coal are not doing damage control and pushing propaganda and disinformation with regards to the CO2 problem they are responsible for?

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.

originally posted by: jrod
A software error disproves anthropgenic warming?

That's not what he said. Seems like you're responding to headlines rather than the meat of his claim which is that yes CO2 is increasing and yes temperatures will increase as a result, but not as much as the popular models claim.

That doesn't mean I believe his claims, just that I understand that context of his claim and even he admits his team's paper still needs to pass not only peer review before getting published but must also survive wider scientific scrutiny, and he doesn't have a good track record in that area.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was responding to the catchy headline. Are you telling me the headline is not appropriate for the OP?

In response to Ventian:

Those scientists who are government funded via grants and the education system would make much more working for big oil/coal and/or the thinks they fund.

If this turns out to be correct it will be yet another nail in the coffin of the global warming/manmade climate change scare. This whole scam perpetrated by the globalists never really was about true science, but about a "common enemy to unite us", the redistribution of wealth and more centralized control.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was responding to the catchy headline.

Headlines usually don't tell the whole story.

Are you telling me the headline is not appropriate for the OP?

I already provided the clarification that he says IF his paper passes peer review and IF the scientific community accepts his findings, then his revised predictions for amount of global warming will be so small as to not constitute any crisis. That's a bit wordy to include all that in a headline but it's certainly not unusual to omit such details from headlines. The purpose of the headline is to get you to look into the story, and shouldn't be construed as including all relevant information as they are too short for that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Neither do youtube videos....

Just because someone makes something sound true does not make it so. Liars are great at 'selling' their stories.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Neither do youtube videos....

Just because someone makes something sound true does not make it so. Liars are great at 'selling' their stories.

He just said he and his team of scientists have found an error in the mathematical models used to correlate temperature change and CO2 levels. A paper has been submitted for peer review and it will be a few months before we know whether the findings are ratified. I suggest you watch the video.

The argument that x000 scientists can't be wrong or 97% said it's true so it must be was always nonsensical. At one point the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the solar system around which the sun and all other planets orbited. The majority of scientists believed it. Then along came the truth.

Sometimes what we thought was right turns out to be wrong and it does not require a majority to prove it. That is not how science works.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: gmoneystunt

I don't know man. The source is WordPress. I have one of those pages myself, and can say anything I want, true or not.

Yeah, Wordpress vs peer-reviewed articles in _Nature_ and _Science_ and code and data archives.

Which one should we trust?

originally posted by: UKTruth
The argument that x000 scientists can't be wrong or 97% said it's true so it must be was always nonsensical. At one point the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the solar system around which the sun and all other planets orbited. The majority of scientists believed it.

No, there were essentially almost no people with an attitude compatible with modern 'science' then. And there was no physical evidence strongly preferring that explanation to others.

Then along came the truth.

And when everybody who could remotely be called anything like a scientist looked through Galileo's telescopes they immediately recognized he was right. Then with more observations & theory from Kepler it was conclusive---experimental observations and theory in agreement.

At that point, the opinions of the majority of science about what the meaning and strength of the scientific evidence is important.

Sometimes what we thought was right turns out to be wrong and it does not require a majority to prove it. That is not how science works.

That's right, it requires experimental data. And the experimental data are overwhelming and comprehensive with global warming from increased greenhouse effect.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: UKTruth
The argument that x000 scientists can't be wrong or 97% said it's true so it must be was always nonsensical. At one point the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the solar system around which the sun and all other planets orbited. The majority of scientists believed it.

No, there were essentially almost no people with an attitude compatible with modern 'science' then. And there was no physical evidence strongly preferring that explanation to others.

Then along came the truth.

And when everybody who could remotely be called anything like a scientist looked through Galileo's telescopes they immediately recognized he was right. Then with more observations & theory from Kepler it was conclusive---experimental observations and theory in agreement.

At that point, the opinions of the majority of science about what the meaning and strength of the scientific evidence is important.

Sometimes what we thought was right turns out to be wrong and it does not require a majority to prove it. That is not how science works.

That's right, it requires experimental data. And the experimental data are overwhelming and comprehensive with global warming from increased greenhouse effect.

Nonsense. The greatest minds of the time were wrong, until they were shown the truth. You are trying to sell a lie, presumably for your priests, that modern science can not be wrong.
IF Monckton's analysis is correct a group of modern scientists will be proven incorrect. Whichever way you look at it one group of scientists is wrong.
I will await the results of the peer review and utterly reject any notion that we have to believe the status quo in the face of all new evidence. That kind of dogma is the enemy of science.

a reply to: jrod

Absolutely not, I am just considering all of the variables. Almost, if not all, corporations pollute and pollute heavily. Those corporations will certainly lobby and use propaganda in regards to that pollution. What I am referring to is the fact that one single variable, in this case CO2, is not responsible for all of the climate's drastic changes. This has been nothing more than a way for the government to move money around and scratch people's backs. Universities get more to waste during the Dem's reign and the Military gets more to waste during the GOP's reign.

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?

originally posted by: ventian
a reply to: jrod

Absolutely not, I am just considering all of the variables. Almost, if not all, corporations pollute and pollute heavily. Those corporations will certainly lobby and use propaganda in regards to that pollution. What I am referring to is the fact that one single variable, in this case CO2, is not responsible for all of the climate's drastic changes. This has been nothing more than a way for the government to move money around and scratch people's backs. Universities get more to waste during the Dem's reign and the Military gets more to waste during the GOP's reign.

Oh yes, more money to waste!

You know, like developing this here internet that you're posting on. Big waste of money, clearly.

e: and before you go off on some tangent, consider that conservative measurements value the internet as approximately 6% of U.S. GDP, yet we spend far less than that on R&D.

a reply to: Greven

Both parties waste plenty of money and only someone with a very limited worldview would believe otherwise.