Ice Age Scare of the 70's

[Old Rocks]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

I'm not an american so I really dont know anything about Rush Limbaugh but I would bet that he would make you look as stupid as you are if you had the temerity to actually discuss global warming with him.

but let's talk about Monckton. you dont like that he, as a Scotsman, is pissed off at England for changing the law on hereditary titles. I dont really give a shit about politics over there but I can understand why he might be upset.

next, you make fun of his Graves's Disease and the common symptom of bulging eyes. I suppose it is not a stretch for you to focus on physical deformities rather than intellect but I do find it rather odious and low class of you.

then, you make fun of his non climate science degrees. he is obviously much more intelligent than you, with more education, wealth and wit. I am not surprised that your pedestrian envy clouds your attitude towards him.

I would call Monckton a climate science historian. he knows much, much more than you on the subject. and probably more than most climate scientists. he also has the distinction of being a published author in peer reviewed climate science. Old Rocks, you are inferior to Monckton in every way. he would slice you up and leave you bleeding on every subject under the sun, perhaps with the exception on how to change a light bulb in the mill.

Limbaugh is an obese junkie, a blowhard on the AM radio with zero acedemic qualifications in any field whatsoever.

Even Scotland produces some lying sons of bitches, of which Monkton is one. As in his claim to have published a peer reviewed article. Here is the reality on that;

Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature - Real Sceptic

But he does say that he has published a peer-reviewed paper. The article he is referring to is “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” and was published in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society. And due to Monckton constantly claiming this article is peer-reviewed they saw the need to add the following statement.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

They even went further than this disclaimer on Monckton's article. All subsequent submissions that are published in the newsletter section contain variants of the following statement:

This contribution has not been peer-refereed. They represent solely the view(s) of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of APS.

Mind you, similar statements have also been added to Newsletter editions that were released prior to the article Monckton submitted. Quite the act to do if these newsletters contain peer-reviewed articles. This would have caused an uproar in the scientific community if papers suddenly were marked as non-peer-reviewed. But nobody, besides Monckton, raised objections to these changes.

Monkton certainly does not have more education in science than I. I have finished classes in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry. The most advanced class I have taken is Eng. Geo. 470/570. I doubt Monkton has ever finished a 200 level class in science. His degree is in journalism, and his statements concerning science reflect that lack of education on his part.

 

[SSDD]

And again rocks...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

What's the matter...can't bring yourself to admit that the ice age scare of the 70's was real? Would that tear down your fragile ego to much to bear? Who else was there rocks...exactly how large was the climate science establishment in the 70's...how many other agencies were there. As best as I can find, there were none and funding wasn't there...the CIA report outlines the institution of funding programs which then began to establish the climate science establishment we see today...

So again..who else was there?

 

[IanC]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

I'm not an american so I really dont know anything about Rush Limbaugh but I would bet that he would make you look as stupid as you are if you had the temerity to actually discuss global warming with him.

but let's talk about Monckton. you dont like that he, as a Scotsman, is pissed off at England for changing the law on hereditary titles. I dont really give a shit about politics over there but I can understand why he might be upset.

next, you make fun of his Graves's Disease and the common symptom of bulging eyes. I suppose it is not a stretch for you to focus on physical deformities rather than intellect but I do find it rather odious and low class of you.

then, you make fun of his non climate science degrees. he is obviously much more intelligent than you, with more education, wealth and wit. I am not surprised that your pedestrian envy clouds your attitude towards him.

I would call Monckton a climate science historian. he knows much, much more than you on the subject. and probably more than most climate scientists. he also has the distinction of being a published author in peer reviewed climate science. Old Rocks, you are inferior to Monckton in every way. he would slice you up and leave you bleeding on every subject under the sun, perhaps with the exception on how to change a light bulb in the mill.

Limbaugh is an obese junkie, a blowhard on the AM radio with zero acedemic qualifications in any field whatsoever.

Even Scotland produces some lying sons of bitches, of which Monkton is one. As in his claim to have published a peer reviewed article. Here is the reality on that;

Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature - Real Sceptic

But he does say that he has published a peer-reviewed paper. The article he is referring to is “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” and was published in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society. And due to Monckton constantly claiming this article is peer-reviewed they saw the need to add the following statement.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

They even went further than this disclaimer on Monckton's article. All subsequent submissions that are published in the newsletter section contain variants of the following statement:

This contribution has not been peer-refereed. They represent solely the view(s) of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of APS.

Mind you, similar statements have also been added to Newsletter editions that were released prior to the article Monckton submitted. Quite the act to do if these newsletters contain peer-reviewed articles. This would have caused an uproar in the scientific community if papers suddenly were marked as non-peer-reviewed. But nobody, besides Monckton, raised objections to these changes.

Monkton certainly does not have more education in science than I. I have finished classes in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry. The most advanced class I have taken is Eng. Geo. 470/570. I doubt Monkton has ever finished a 200 level class in science. His degree is in journalism, and his statements concerning science reflect that lack of education on his part.

Old Rocks, your ignorance never ceases to astound me. are you really unaware of the paper published in Science Bulletin (chinese equivalent to Science)? After all the flak that it sent Willie Soon's way? or the rent-a-critic ad homs unleashed on it by persons that most likely hadnt even read it? Why models run hot results from an irreducibly simple climate model

as far as education, he has a masters and a journalism diploma. you have a handful of courses taken for free at your local college because you're a senior citizen.

Monckton is smarter than you, has more money than you, and has lived a gadfly life where he has been involved with all sorts of interesting people and situations. while you worked at the mill. I can understand your envy but I dont agree with it.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia:
Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College, Cambridge, where he received a B.A. (Classics, 1974, now M.A.), and at University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies.

So, NO science education

and

Published works

• The Laker Story (with Ivan Fallon). Christensen, 1982. ISBN 0-9508007-0-8
• Anglican Orders: null and void?. Family History Books, 1986.
• The AIDS Report. 1987
• European Monetary Union: opportunities and dangers. University of St. Andrews, Department of Economics. 1997
• Sudoku X. Headline Publishing Group, 2005. ISBN 0-7553-1501-4
• Sudoku X-mas. Headline Publishing Group, 2005. ISBN 0-7553-1502-2
• Sudoku Xpert. Headline Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 0-7553-1529-4
• Junior Sudoku X. Headline Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 0-7553-1528-6
• Sudoku Xtreme. Headline Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 0-7553-1530-8
• "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered". Forum on Physics and Society, American Physical Society. July 2008.

The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published nine non peer-reviewed articles by Monckton on climate-change science.[74]

I don't see your Science of China article listed here Ian. I've been to your link. Did you note that it was Issue #1? Quite a collection of co-authors. For how much of that article do you think Monckton was responsible? Where did Monckton get any education in climate models, even at the calculator level? What do you want to bet that his co-authors were all funded through that "study" by The Science and Public Policy Institute and, in return, Christopher got to put his name up there. You know, for that matter, what experience do ANY of those fellows have with GCMs? Soon is into the sun, Legates is a geographer and the last fellow is a statistician. What other GCMs have any of them ever created? Any?

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. sometimes you guys are soooooo stupid. dont you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot?

it may be issue #1 (eg january) but it is volume 60.

if you want to see a volume one, issue one article just look up Berkeley BEST. it was the first article ever in a pay-for-publish Indian journal.

 

[Crick]

From YOUR link:

"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

Read more at: Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models"

It WAS the very first issue of "Science Bulletin". See http://download.springer.com/static...534823b9fc6ebe9692a998d0d3311fbdcf4a9648e20aa
from the issue itself.

 

[Muhammed]

The fact of the matter is that the Earth is currently experiencing an ice age.

 

[Crick]

You're only playing semantics.

 

[Old Rocks]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

I'm not an american so I really dont know anything about Rush Limbaugh but I would bet that he would make you look as stupid as you are if you had the temerity to actually discuss global warming with him.

but let's talk about Monckton. you dont like that he, as a Scotsman, is pissed off at England for changing the law on hereditary titles. I dont really give a shit about politics over there but I can understand why he might be upset.

next, you make fun of his Graves's Disease and the common symptom of bulging eyes. I suppose it is not a stretch for you to focus on physical deformities rather than intellect but I do find it rather odious and low class of you.

then, you make fun of his non climate science degrees. he is obviously much more intelligent than you, with more education, wealth and wit. I am not surprised that your pedestrian envy clouds your attitude towards him.

I would call Monckton a climate science historian. he knows much, much more than you on the subject. and probably more than most climate scientists. he also has the distinction of being a published author in peer reviewed climate science. Old Rocks, you are inferior to Monckton in every way. he would slice you up and leave you bleeding on every subject under the sun, perhaps with the exception on how to change a light bulb in the mill.

Limbaugh is an obese junkie, a blowhard on the AM radio with zero acedemic qualifications in any field whatsoever.

Even Scotland produces some lying sons of bitches, of which Monkton is one. As in his claim to have published a peer reviewed article. Here is the reality on that;

Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature - Real Sceptic

But he does say that he has published a peer-reviewed paper. The article he is referring to is “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” and was published in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society. And due to Monckton constantly claiming this article is peer-reviewed they saw the need to add the following statement.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

They even went further than this disclaimer on Monckton's article. All subsequent submissions that are published in the newsletter section contain variants of the following statement:

This contribution has not been peer-refereed. They represent solely the view(s) of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of APS.

Mind you, similar statements have also been added to Newsletter editions that were released prior to the article Monckton submitted. Quite the act to do if these newsletters contain peer-reviewed articles. This would have caused an uproar in the scientific community if papers suddenly were marked as non-peer-reviewed. But nobody, besides Monckton, raised objections to these changes.

Monkton certainly does not have more education in science than I. I have finished classes in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry. The most advanced class I have taken is Eng. Geo. 470/570. I doubt Monkton has ever finished a 200 level class in science. His degree is in journalism, and his statements concerning science reflect that lack of education on his part.

Old Rocks, your ignorance never ceases to astound me. are you really unaware of the paper published in Science Bulletin (chinese equivalent to Science)? After all the flak that it sent Willie Soon's way? or the rent-a-critic ad homs unleashed on it by persons that most likely hadnt even read it? Why models run hot results from an irreducibly simple climate model

as far as education, he has a masters and a journalism diploma. you have a handful of courses taken for free at your local college because you're a senior citizen.

Monckton is smarter than you, has more money than you, and has lived a gadfly life where he has been involved with all sorts of interesting people and situations. while you worked at the mill. I can understand your envy but I dont agree with it.

OK, Mr. Ian, you make all sorts of claims about matters of which you cannot know anything about. I pay full costs for books and tuition. I pack my own weight now, and always have. If you regard more than 2/3 rsds of the credits I need for a degree as a few courses, that is OK with me.

Now Monkton is and always has been a fraud, a pretender to have knowledge he does not, and a liar in almost all matters. Not name calling, simple fact.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks doesn't like me talking about him. But he sure likes talking about others when he doesn't have all the information.

How often has he besmirched my motives? How often has he called me a conservative?

How often has he asked for evidence, then run away when I give it to him? Only to repeat the the lie and ask for the same evidence in another thread?

I seldom insult people but Old Rocks has thoroughly earned any that I have thrown his way, and much more.

 

[Crick]

Ian, do you believe Monckton is an accurate and reliable source of technical information on the climate? Yes or No?

 

[SSDD]

Ian, do you believe Monckton is an accurate and reliable source of technical information on the climate? Yes or No?

The issue is the mathematics in question...it wouldn't matter whether he dressed in a clown suit and washed cars for a living...either that particular claim on his part is correct or it isn't. Addressing anything other than that particular point in relation to that point is a logical fallacy....you guys are big on logical fallacy...to even question whether he is reliable rather than demonstrate conclusively that he is wrong is, in fact a logical fallacy....it is an ad hominem....or perhaps a circumstantial ad hominem...either way, it isn't relevant to the topic...

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe Monckton is an accurate and reliable source of technical information on the climate? Yes or No?

that is not really a yes or no question. what is the context? who do you consider an accurate and reliable source of technical information?

Monckton plays the Climate Wars game like a debate. he emphasizes points that are beneficial to his position and ignores the rest. just like 'real' climate scientists.

Is Mann an accurate and reliable source of technical information? offset PCs, truncated and cherrypicked data, the infamous Tiljander cores, etc.

how about Briffa?his work was part of basically all the spaghetti graphs, but they were incomplete and outdated because the new data ran counter to the needed uptick. at least he finally came (a little bit) clean in 2012 when he finally published an update that looked exactly like what McIntyre said it should be in 2007.

how about Phil Jones? his incompetent UHI paper that actually spawned a fraud investigation still hasnt been retracted.

was Huang and his boreholes an accurate source of technical information? hahahaha.

I have listed some of the near-criminals in the climate science field. Please give me the names of some of the people you respect and consider unbiased. I actually would appreciate finding some common ground where we could agree for a change.

 

[Crick]

It has been clearly demonstrated that Monckton - a man with no training in the field of whatsoever - has knowingly lied to the public and to multiple governments about this issue. The same cannot be said of Mann or Hansen or Trenberth or Marcotte or any of the other several thousand degreed, published climate scientists who are ALL firmly convinced that the primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. If anyone around here is a criminal who has repeatedly demonstrated he cannot and should not be trusted, it is LORD Monckton.

 

[jc456]

First, fuck off asshole.

Second, you and I are apparently looking at different texts. I am looking at the National Academy of Science's "Understanding Climate Change", which may be found at the link I provided above: Full text of Understanding climatic change The text at that link contains NONE of the quotes you have presented. I know you're not capable of having manufactured such text, so you must be getting it from somewhere. Now, what's needed is for you to tell us where.

Exactly the paper the quotes I provide are from... geez guy, even with clear instructions on where to find them in the text, you can't find them....I have you section numbers and locations in the paragraphs...are you really illiterate?

Here. let me try one more time....if you can't find them after this then you really must be written of as one stupid loser...

I will see if I can explain this step by step assuming that I really am talking to an idiot...

1. Click on your link
2. Make sure you are at the top of the page
3. Scroll past the list of "scientific members" and the list of "members"
4. At that point you will see the roman numeral IV and "forward" underneath.
5. You will scoll past sections labeled with roman numerals up to XII and then you will see a heading called contents....followed by the word "introduction" just below it. THAT is where the actual report starts.
6. As you scroll down the table of contents, you will see "Record of Instrumentally Observed Climatic Changes / 36"...that chapter will be where you find the first quote.
7. After you get that far, and see the quote...then you continue down the page...past the rather long breaks of meaningless characters to the rest of the text to sections 92, 181, and 189... I have already told you where in the paragraphs the text can be found.

I find it hard to believe that you are really this stupid...referencing a paper that you obviously have never read past the introduction....a paper that clearly outlines the threat of an approaching cooling climate...and then even when told where the quotes can be found, you are still unable to find them.

More and more laughable crick...

Let's see your link to the paper, asshole.

Full text of Understanding climatic change

There is nothing else for it crick...you are an illiterate who simply can not read...even with step by step instructions to find the quotes in the paper you linked to you can not find the quotes....How much more stupid could you possibly get?

I am rolling on the floor laughing at your stupidity.

got right there. All I did was hit control 'f' and searched for the word cooling. Came right up on the quotes you provided. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Edit: BTW, the word cooling is mentioned in the paper 23 times.

 

[jc456]

It has been clearly demonstrated that Monckton - a man with no training in the field of whatsoever - has knowingly lied to the public and to multiple governments about this issue. The same cannot be said of Mann or Hansen or Trenberth or Marcotte or any of the other several thousand degreed, published climate scientists who are ALL firmly convinced that the primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. If anyone around here is a criminal who has repeatedly demonstrated he cannot and should not be trusted, it is LORD Monckton.

and you didn't answer Ian's question, so you.

 

[mamooth]

Monckton's math is junk. Multiple debunkings of it all over. See the other thread on it. None of the deniers want to discuss it.

Ian is relying solely on an appeal-to-authority fallacy to defend Monckton, hence showing that he's not any kind of authority is a valid rebuttal.

 

[jc456]

Monckton's math is junk. Multiple debunkings of it all over. See the other thread on it. None of the deniers want to discuss it.

Ian is relying solely on an appeal-to-authority fallacy to defend Monckton, hence showing that he's not any kind of authority is a valid rebuttal.

can you show us where Monckton's math is junk?

 

[SSDD]

Monckton's math is junk. Multiple debunkings of it all over. See the other thread on it. None of the deniers want to discuss it.

Ian is relying solely on an appeal-to-authority fallacy to defend Monckton, hence showing that he's not any kind of authority is a valid rebuttal.

can you show us where Monckton's math is junk?

She read it at skeptical science..so it must be true.

 

[mamooth]

Check the Monckton thread.