Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 139865 2015-07-13 02:48:00 Can I have a $ each way please? B.M. (505) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1404606 2015-07-17 03:20:00 Well do you want to argue with this guy? And keep in mind he was studying these matters before you were born.

HERE (www.globalclimatescam.com) and make sure you listen to him carefully right to the end. :lol: 		B.M. (505)
1404607 2015-07-17 09:48:00 Well do you want to argue with this guy? And keep in mind he was studying these matters before you were born.

HERE (www.globalclimatescam.com) and make sure you listen to him carefully right to the end. :lol:

I've no interest in arguing with that guy. I'd rather chat things over with someone who knows what they're talking about.

Christopher Monckton is a public speaker with political ties. NOT a scientist. Just because he's a hereditary peer, doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. 		Nick G (16709)
1404608 2015-07-17 19:46:00 I've no interest in arguing with that guy. I'd rather chat things over with someone who knows what they're talking about.

Oh well he was I quote: “Mr. Monckton was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. In 1986 he was among the first to advise the prime minister that “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Centre for Forecasting: but she, like him, later changed her view.”

I guess they looked at the data provided and decided it wasn’t worth worrying about.

However, you’ll love THIS (www.youtube.com) guy. :lol: 		B.M. (505)
1404609 2015-07-18 02:44:00 Well, if we're pulling out quotes:

'Monckton's opinions conflict with the scientific opinion on climate change,[54][55] where there is overwhelming consensus for anthropogenic global warming, and show a decisive link between Carbon dioxide concentration and global average temperatures.'

'In 2009, John P. Abraham criticized Monckton's claims in a lecture at Bethel University,[56][57] and Monckton filed disciplinary charges alleging academic dishonesty against Abraham.[58][59][60] The University of St Thomas's lawyers wrote to Monckton that "The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham, Father Dease, and The University of St Thomas."[61] The latter was in response to an interview in which Monckton characterized Abraham as "a wretched little man," the university's president Dease as "a creep," and the University of St. Thomas as "a half-assed Catholic bible college".[62]'

And he had an education in classics and journalism studies. A scientist to be respected, most definitely. 		Nick G (16709)
1404610 2015-07-18 04:58:00 Well, if we're pulling out quotes:

'Monckton's opinions conflict with the scientific opinion on climate change,[54][55] where there is overwhelming consensus for anthropogenic global warming, and show a decisive link between Carbon dioxide concentration and global average temperatures . '

'In 2009, John P . Abraham criticized Monckton's claims in a lecture at Bethel University,[56][57] and Monckton filed disciplinary charges alleging academic dishonesty against Abraham . [58][59][60] The University of St Thomas's lawyers wrote to Monckton that "The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you . What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham, Father Dease, and The University of St Thomas . "[61] The latter was in response to an interview in which Monckton characterized Abraham as "a wretched little man," the university's president Dease as "a creep," and the University of St . Thomas as "a half-assed Catholic bible college" . [62]'

And he had an education in classics and journalism studies . A scientist to be respected, most definitely .

Ahh yes, those on the “take” have gone to extreme lengths to discredit Mockton and others, as explained by Mockton in that interview I previously linked to . But at the end of the day the figures weren’t “fudged” by Mockton, they were fudged by Mann and his cohorts who wouldn’t release their workings for examination . In other words they marked their own papers and refused any “Peer Review” of their work . They even ordered the destruction of data when they realised they had been busted .

On the other hand Mockton and his colleagues have been only too willing to table their findings for review .

Personally, I think the cover-ups and the cover-ups of the cover-ups is a bloody disgrace as it taints the rest of the Scientific community .

However, just to bring you up to speed on this matter, I found the following .

6603

:lol: 		B.M. (505)
1404611 2015-07-18 06:52:00 For f*cks sake B.M, grow up and realise that one dodgy scientist does not give you free license to ignore all others. And yes, it's funny that Mockton has been discredited, with his education background being in science (not), and his 'work' (commentary) being so clearly independent from his political views (it's not).

However, on the topic of Michael Mann, let's have a read of this shall we? en.wikipedia.org

In case it's beyond your level of comprehension, here are a couple of quick points to glance at:
His education - A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Clearly this complete lack of education makes his views far less worthwhile than that of the scientifically educated Mockton (it's the exact opposite)

And the controversy - 'More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[33][34]'

'Mann was specifically cleared by several inquiries. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and his research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties'

'The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave detailed consideration to petitions with allegations against Mann from lobbyists including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Association: the EPA found their claims were not supported by the evidence.[35][39]'

'At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[36][40] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[36][41][42]' 		Nick G (16709)
1404612 2015-07-18 07:31:00 Advantage - Receiver. R2x1 (4628)
1404613 2015-07-18 07:58:00 Advantage - Receiver.
To which of us are referring to? :confused: 		Nick G (16709)
1404614 2015-07-18 08:40:00 Tell you what, to change the subject from climate change, we could always re-open the debate on whether Einstein did or did not say in his 1905 paper, that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.........OR......whether the Moon causes/triggers earthquakes...........OR.......whether the forces exerted by planets such as Venus also trigger earthquakes, or even that the tectonic plates are so finely balanced that a butterfly fluttering his wings in China could cause an earthquake in NZ :banana Terry Porritt (14)
1404615 2015-07-18 08:41:00 For me the fact that it is those that are making cash out of the whole climate change/AGM subject are the on the pro side of the debate and stand to lose the most if they are disbelieved makes me deeply suspicious of what they say. Having said that both sides seem to be very good at ignoring any evidence that does not suit their personal views. I tend to believe that it is all a very well executed Con job.
BM I suggest that you can never change the deeply held, almost religious, beliefs of some members of the forum so don't waste time trying to do so :) 		CliveM (6007)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25