Comments 1 to 9:

1. ProfMandia at 13:51 PM on 3 September, 2010
   Superb analysis. According to the Climate Scoreboard we are headed toward +4 C by 2100.
   0 0
2. Rob Honeycutt at 03:39 AM on 4 September, 2010
   Alden is putting together some really great presentations here. I hope he keeps more of these coming.
   0 0
3. citizenschallenge at 04:24 AM on 4 September, 2010
   Ditto to that. Great educational video. Keep them coming! Since we are on the topic of Monckton I'd like to mention my layperson's critique of SPPI and their braintrust Chris Monckton. I'm reviewing aspects of Monckton's message that are beneath the dignity of serious scientists to pursue. Claims and issues that are nonetheless relevant to the struggle against the "AGW is a Hoax" industry. If you curious please visit: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com Peter M.
   0 0
4. Rob Honeycutt at 05:15 AM on 4 September, 2010
   factfinder... Can you direct us to where the greenhouse effect was disproved in 1909?
   0 0
5. citizenschallenge at 07:16 AM on 4 September, 2010
   factfinder while you're at it, how about a little detail on the following: "Physics is based on Experimental data - not "empirical evidence that > Has Been Shown To Be Caused By Dozens Of Other Causes." What other causes have shown the physics of GHG's to be false?
   0 0
6. scaddenp at 10:01 AM on 4 September, 2010
   "fact" finder - your comment about "fairy tales" is somewhat ironic. However, to have any sensible discussion here, perhaps you would outline what you think is a reasonable process for you to distinguish "fact" from "lie"? Then we might be able to help you sort out a few fictions.
   0 0
7. Roy Latham at 15:38 PM on 5 September, 2010
   The refutation of Monckton is, in essence, that the range of IPCC predictions is so broad as to include global warming so slight as to pose no serious problem, all the way to predictions that global warming is a dire problem. So when one wants to validate the IPCC one takes the data as being within the lower bound -- that global warming is not a problem -- validation. However, when one argues that global warming is a serious problem, one takes the midpoint or higher of the predictions. The trend for the last century is around the lower bound of the IPCC predictions. Skeptics argue that the relatively low rate of warming that started after the Little Ice Age was the trend likely to continue. That is denounced by crisis advocates as too low, but it is now supported as being within the range of model predictions. The refutation of Monckton asserts that nothing much can be said from seven years of data or even fifteen years. Why is that? Crisis advocates say that there is no solar activity going on, no ocean cycles, no paucity of volcanic activity -- that there is nothing to presently account for climate change other than CO2. Skeptics claim, by contrast, that climate is complex, with CO2 being one of many factors, and without all the factors being well modeled. Predictions that just about anything could happen supports the skeptics, not climate crisis.
   0 0
8. Rob Painting at 16:02 PM on 5 September, 2010
   Roy Latham @ 7 - "The trend for the last century is around the lower bound of the IPCC predictions." Doesn't make sense. The IPCC hasn't been around for a century.
   0 0
9. CBDunkerson at 01:40 AM on 6 September, 2010
   Roy #7, you've just done the same thing Monckton does... rewrite things to a false narrative which you can 'disprove'. The "refutation of Monckton" in the linked video and writeup is that he took a formula for "long term" warming for a given rise in CO2 and treated it as IMMEDIATE warming once that level of CO2 was reached. He calculated that an assumed level of CO2 at 2100 would result in the formula's warming result immediately in 2100 (thereby misapplying the formula) and then took a linear slope towards getting to that point over the past ten years (thereby ignoring that warming is predicted to be, and thus far has been, increasing in rate, rather than linear). The rest of your analysis is equally inaccurate, and if you are really going to argue that a seven year 'trend' means anything in the face of a hundred year trend in the opposite direction on either side of those seven years then this stops being about any kind of reason.
   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.