Thursday, January 21, 2016

Debating Malicious Ignorance, 1000frolly, Lord Monckton, et al.

Often in my spare time I check out YouTube because they have some great lectures and other Earth science videos that are fun to watch and learn from.  Of course, YouTube is also saturated with a lot of trash and worse, and I do my best to steer away from it.  Unfortunately, google/YouTube are always shoving videos into your face according to google's algorithms and I'm constantly being confronted with incredibly stupid climate science denial videos.  

In particular one channel going by 1000frolly, which I have reason to think may be none other than that master of oratory and lies Lord Monckton, has been pumping out science denial videos like there's no tomorrow.  I've tangled with him a couple times and have my comments disappear - so much for them wanting serious debate, but it's useless and consumes too much precious time that I do my best to avoid his nonsense. 

Then, while gathering links for my upcoming evolution of our atmosphere post, I got hit with another one, this time he's going after Potholer54 the creator of one of the best YouTube series dedicated to explaining climate science to regular people and it irritated me enough that I put my other project on hold (yet again) to give this video and its claims a closer look.  

I'm embedding the original Potholer54 video after my critique of Lord frolly's claims, as usual I supply plenty of supporting evidence, including links to GISS FAQs.  I finish up with a cut and paste from the index (linked to their webpages) 2001 IPCC working group one, on the "physical basis".  I do this because it puts the lie to climate contrarian's moldy mantra, 'there is no science' - you just need the curiosity and interest to make the effort to learn about it.  

The Evidence for Climate Change WITHOUT Potholer54 - Revised 
1000frolly  aka Lord Monckton?
Published on Apr 22, 2015
"The Evidence for Climate Change Without Models or the IPCC" is critiqued.
Identified problems;

1) Incorrect use of the term 'climate change'; term is used refer only to a hypothetical and totally unproven anthropogenic climate change.
This is plain old childish.  
A) "Climate Change" is exactly what it says.
B) It is not a term with any sort of designated official definition to haggle over.
C) Any honest evaluation of weather trends, makes it obvious that our planet's climate is in the midst of a transition, as reflected in global weather reports.
D) We are warming our planet - that has led to a changing climate!

But since phonies like our Lord frolly (rhymes with folly) don't have any serious science on their sides, they depend on this sort of contrived pointless nit-picking to fill up space.
This is nothing but name calling - a substance-less declaration of supposedly self-evident truth, still nothing but vapors.

"Theory" = "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

The Discovery of Global Warming - a history
A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) 
understand what people are doing to cause climate change.

There's no question remaining that CO2 is a major regulator of our atmosphere's insulating ability and that it has been a major regulator of Earth's climate through the ages.  Uttering such stupidity demands a total rejection of available knowledge and disconnect from our physical Earth.

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
June 7, 2005
Contributed by Corinne Le Quéré, University of East Anglia.

This question keeps coming back, although we know the answer very well: all of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities, in spite of the fact that both the oceans and the land biosphere respond to global warming. There is a lot of evidence to support this statement which has been explained in a previous posting here and in a letter in Physics Today . However, the most convincing arguments for scientists (based on isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere) may be hard to understand for the general public because they require a high level of scientific knowledge. I present simpler evidence of the same statement based on ocean observations, and I explain how we know that not only part of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activities, but all of it. ...

{The thing is, to actually learn about all this requires a good-faith effort to do some homework and serious thinking for oneself.  For instance, there's a whole bunch of paragraphs I've had to snip from this article.

I'm hoping this teaser will encourage some to read the entire article at RealClimate.}

... In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

More on the carbon budget can be found in the last IPCC report here, which includes budgets and uncertainties for different time periods and additional numbers for the small contribution of volcanoes and other geological reservoirs.
IPCC 2001: Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis
3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
3) Use of ambiguous terms such as 'can cause' instead of 'causes' - possibly to obfuscate the science.

Potholer54 was asking: 'if it can cause.'
The evidence says: 'it does cause.'
Your petty complaint is meaningless.

Besides, what's it got to do with "obfuscating the science"?  Want to talk about obfuscating, suggesting CO2 is caused by cosmic rays, now that's some serious obfuscation.

This character then goes on to claim that CO2 which has caused past warming is a different matter from CO2 currently causing warming???  Very weird.  The physics of greenhouse gases hasn't changed, no matter what the source of said gas is.

But that's the sort of nonsense these clowns call their "science".
Grownups on the outside looking in call it faux-science within an echo-chamber.
4) Mentions positive feed-backs such as the water vapor feedback, but neglects to mention the negative feed-backs, such as the lapse rate or the cloud feed-backs.

at 6:10 - "This is the whole main part of dispute between skeptics and alarmists in the field of climate science, positive feedback..."
Think about that wording.  

It comes from an insulated "science" community that's in constant conflict with other scientists, whom they see as enemies.  But that's not what serious science is about.  In serious science, it's the learning about the phenomena, that's always center stage.  Errors are constructively defined, resolved and learned from.

However, in this Lord frolly and Heartland, et al. faux-science community it's all about their political bottom line and making enemies of their "opponents" ... through a lot of lip flapping and little substance.

Regarding "lapse-rate" that's been factored into equations for decades.  Neglecting to mention it means nothing.  Those real feedbacks have also been thoroughly studied and understood, even if Potholer54 didn't mention them.  

The important point is that they are pretty tiny compared to the whole, besides those geophysical realities have been in play for millions of years anyways, nothing new there.  Nothing like what humanity has done to this planet over the past century.  

For a some serious science regarding this supposedly "neglected" cloud feedback:

However, recent evidence indicates this is not the case. Two separate studies have looked at cloud changes in the tropics and subtropics using a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations and climate models. Both found that cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.

Another study used satellite measurements of cloud cover over the entire planet to measure cloud feedback.  Although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback was probably positive (warming).  It is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset much of human-caused global warming.

Other studies have found that the climate models that best simulate cloud changes are the ones that find it to be a positive feedback, and thus have higher climate sensitivities.  Steven Sherwood explains one such study:   ... (link)
{*Yeah, yeah, Lord frolly, dismisses such legitimate sources of scientific information, 
like a priest banning his flock from reading provocative books.  
Thing is Lordie, in the serious scientific communities, it's all about digesting ALL the information at hand, learning, and understanding, and always striving to constructively move forward.}
     Water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks
7:00 - "there's no change in global sea ice"
Of such lies, their arguments are made.

Just as pathetic, is their profound disregard for the difference of between "seasonal sea ice" - "multi-year sea ice" - "glacial ice."  Seems to me it should be downright criminal to tell gullible people that global ice loss and increasing infrastructure destruction isn't actually being observed.  Particularly when it's repeated by someone like Senator Inhofe a man of real power and authority over the wellbeing of US citizens.

For a look at the state of today's global cryosphere:

Greenland Ice Mass Loss: Jan. 2004 - June 2014 

TimeLapse: Watch 27 Years of 'Old' Arctic Ice 
Melt Away in Seconds 

Antarctic Ice Mass Loss: Jan. 2004 - June 2014 


For at little about how scientists are gathering this information see
Global Cryosphere Watch
5) Claims as 'basic physics' a climate sensitivity of 2c-4.5c when the latest scientific papers show a much lower sensitivity of around half of this.
An outlier paper here and there doesn't outweigh the hundreds of papers that preceded, just because it says what Lord frolly likes to hear.

Establishing an exact number on climate sensitivity is devilishly difficult, if not impossible.  But, the Lord demands an exact number, before anyone is allowed to accept anything - it is most childish, or is it simply devilishly dishonest?

A) - The range remains very consistent through many dozens of studies over as many decades.
B) - The physical changes we've seen in our climate system, read the increased extremes, and increasingly destructive torrential downpours we are witnessing is plenty proof that the climate is rather sensitive to the hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we've injected into our thin atmosphere.
C) - C.S. is only a number we don't fully understand anyways, what about the trends and events in front of our eyes?

At 8:00 there's another weird smash-up of numbers and concepts that's a classic example of mixing, matching, and omitting facts with the intention of totally muddling any understanding of the phenomena being discussed.  In this case the sun's local insolation variation due to the seasonal changes in Earth's inclination towards the sun.

This semi-annual seasonal fluctuation results in a variation of 92.0 W/mˆ2 of solar insolation - it is a redistribution from north to south and back.  It has nothing to do how much heat our atmosphere is retaining within the climate system, which after all is the major issue here.

Also, why neglect to mention that this 92 is out of an average of 1360 W/mˆ2 of solar insolation.  Again, scientists are quite aware of these details and Potholer54 can't be expected to share every detail in a short video.  

8:26 - Lord frolly claims Anthropogenic forcing is 0.01 W/mˆ2
2013 State of the Climate: Carbon dioxide tops 400 ppm
Jessica Blunden | Sunday, July 13, 2014

This “extra” CO2 traps an additional 1.88 watts of energy per square meter of the Earth’s surface, about 1 percent of the Sun’s energy that reaches the surface. That may not sound like much, but across the Earth’s surface (510 million square kilometers) that extra CO2 traps 23 billion megawatts of energy every day, about the same amount of energy that was produced in the USA during all of 2013.

Why can't we label what Lord frolly is doing as criminal mischief?

Particularly, if it's part of a malicious calculated effort to mislead the public that has a right to honestly learn about what professional experts are learning - particular with individuals such as Senator Inhofe?

Inhofe’s Insane Climate Denial Speech Tells You Everything You Need to Know About the Republican Party Right Now
By Jonathan Chait | March 1, 2015
Here Are the 56 Percent of Congressional Republicans Who Deny Climate Change
by Tiffany Germain | February 3, 2015
James Inhofe Says the Bible Refutes Climate Change
Brian Tashman on Thursday, 3/8/2012
US congressman Joe Barton cites biblical flood to dispute human link to climate change
Suzanne Goldenberg | April 10, 2013
24 House Republicans Just Voted To Deny The Reality Of Climate Change
BY Katie Valentine | Jan 28, 2014
The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus
Tiffany Germain | June 26, 2013
The sickest joke is Lord frolly compares changing regional variations in the sun's incoming energy - to the atmosphere's retention of more of that heat* because of increased greenhouse gases.  It's seems like our good Lord doesn't know a thing about compounding math either.  How convenient for his ignorance.

*Actually the Lord can't get that number right either.  He calls it 0.01 W/mˆ2, but, but

How much extra energy are we adding to the earth system?
January 11, 2012 

So we can look at the forcing that’s just due to greenhouse gases (about 2.5 W/m2), or we can look at the total net anthropogenic forcing that takes into account all the different effects (which is about 1.6 W/m2).

6) Invents a false distinction between what he calls 'researchers' and others he calls 'critics, bloggers and amateurs'. In reality, science works by scientists trying to invalidate a hypothesis; Potholer is trying to subvert the scientific method by labeling other scientists as 'critics, bloggers and amateurs'.

What false distinction? - Oh yeah I remember, folks like Lord Monckton and his clones, believe they are smarter than experts who have devoted their entire lives to studying our complex climate.

For the record, Potholer54 was referring to dilettantes like Lord Monckton and our mysterious 1000frolly, (Heartland, et al.) who's only interest is to poke holes - that is not science.

Science about learning from those holes we poke into current understanding. It's about continual self-skepticism, examining and understanding our mistakes, and building up our knowledge base.

But they don't concern themselves with learning or striving to compose a coherent picture that matches the reality we are witnessing.  Their collective efforts is dedicated to sowing as much confusion and disconnect from our down to Earth realities as possible.

10:18 "CO2 is an effect (of cosmic rays) not a cause.
{That is plain insane!  And society doen't burn fossil fuels either, I suppose!}

10:35 - "...physical evidence of a micro-physical link"
{Lord, let that me give you a clue, "Micro-Link"!  It's nothing compared to giga tonnes of greenhouse gases being added to our atmosphere every few days by our collective fossil fuels burning, among other Anthropogenic sources!}
11:28 - Here we see the Lord talking climate science in 2016 with a 1965 schematic about central England.  Mind boggling that these old yarns are not allowed to die.  

About that graph:
What Hubert Lamb Really Wrote About The Medieval Warm Period
The Medieval Warm Period in the IPCC 1AR 
February 20, 2014 
MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages 
By John Mashey • Monday, January 26, 2015 
Why isn't this sort malicious deception about serious science considered an actionable offense against the public's right to honestly hear about what climate scientists have been learning?  Particularly when the perpetrator is someone like the powerful influential Senator Inhofe, another serial producer of willful tactical deception, actually out and out fraud against the people.
7) Misleading graph on ocean heat content, which gives the false impression of a rapidly warming ocean.
NOAA - Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content 

8) OHC graph is shown, which is totally incorrect, and gives an alarming view of OHC that is not found in reality.
Nonsense!  Here take look at the various graphs at  There's nothing there disputing Potholer54, and their is plenty to worry about, especial if one is realistic about trends and what it's telling us. 
  1. Global Heat Content (0-700 meters) layer
  2. Global Heat Content (0-2000 meters) layer
  3. Comparison of Global Heat Content 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer
  4. Thermosteric Sea Level Anomaly (0-700 meters) layer
  5. Thermosteric Sea Level Anomaly (0-2000 meters) layer
  6. Comparison of Thermosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer
  7. Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly (0-700 meters) layer
  8. Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly (0-2000 meters) layer
  9. Comparison of Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer
  10. Total Steric Sea Level Anomaly (0-700 meters) layer
  11. Total Steric Sea Level Anomaly (0-2000 meters) layer
  12. Comparison of Total Steric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer
  13. Comparison of Thermosteric and Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters
  14. Comparison of Thermosteric and Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-2000 meters
9) False picture of relative radiative forcings is shown.
What's false about it?


10) False claim that the adaptive infrared iris effect is entirely reliant on computer modelling. On the contrary, its based on empirical science.
For an impartial look at Lindzen's Iris Effect: (June 12, 2002) 
"... Lindzen admits that he still doesn’t know exactly how this infrared iris works, but his hypothesis is that the amount of cirrus “precipitated” out from cumulus depends upon what percent of the water vapor that is rising in a deep convective cloud condenses and falls as rain drops. ..." 
Of course Lindzen's Iris Effect is all about modeling, and of course he started with numbers that he got from real observations of the western Pacific Ocean atmosphere.  As it happens, a new paper came out seemingly vindicating the principle, though not near the magnitude of Lindzen's hypothesis, which was all model driven, and not that convincing to others in the know.

Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models
  • Thorsten Mauritsen & Bjorn Stevens


The return of the iris effect?

"... Within a few years, a number of analyses made clear that the evidence provided by Lindzen et al. had problems [e.g., Hartmann and Michelsen, 2002; Lin et al., 2002; Lin et al., 2004; Su et al., 2008]. Lindzen and colleagues responded to these critiques, but few were convinced by their arguments. By 2006, when I submitted an analysis of tropospheric water vapor that investigated whether there was an iris in that, one of the reviewers pointedly questioned why anyone was still working on this issue. I subsequently withdrew the paper.

Nevertheless, just because Lindzen et al. did not convincingly demonstrate their case does not mean the iris hypothesis is wrong. With that idea in mind, a new paper by Mauritsen and Stevens (2015) revisits the iris hypothesis. The most important part of their work was to simulate the iris in a climate model by artificially tweaking the model’s convective parameterization. They do this by increasing the rate of conversion of cloud water to rain as the climate warms, thereby reducing the amount of detraining condensate in a warmer climate. In effect, this imposes a tweak that mimics the iris effect – it is not a demonstration that the iris effect emerges from any physical mechanisms.

What they find is that, even though cloud cover is reduced as the climate warms, it does not generate a strong negative cloud feedback. ..."
11) False claim that 'If there was a regulating mechanism which stops the planet from overheating, then we wouldn't have seen those wild swings of the past'. This is refuted by the very chart that this narration takes place over. The limit is 25c, which has clearly been a limiting factor, set by the negative feedback mechanism of the clouds.
Just because the Lord claims it, don't make it so.

By totally ignoring the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere - Lord frolly is off in lalaland.  Using past climate records is no road map to our now supercharged atmosphere in the future.
It's the insulation stupid!

Take a look at what serious science has to offer:

17.00-Prof Alley - 4.6 Billion Years Climate - PETM-Zachos(2001)
12) Presents a false picture of the relationship between planetary temperatures and the Sun. This is achieved by depicting solar TSI alone, (ignoring any other solar effects or mechanism) against the most 'adjusted' temperature data-set, GISS. GISS is known to be wrong. {typical conspiracy ideation}
So are you.  "Any other solar effects or mechanism" means nothing.
What are you talking about man?  Solar wind, nah.  Solar neutrinos, nah.  mechanism, the milankovitch cycle, nah, cosmic rays, nah.  Perhaps that's why other factors aren't mentioned, because they aren't material to the discussion. 

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

As for the GISS, why not let them explain it?

The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

13) After claiming many factors as 'evidence' that CO2 causes global warming, Potholer then goes on to discount these very same factors as; 'not what I would call 'evidence''.
Sorry no clue what the clown is talking about here.
14) Potholer says; 'Another key test is that no rival hypothesis comes close to explaining all these observations'. Clearly, CAGW falls just on this alone, re; the cloud/cosmic ray hypothesis.
Nonsense.  Just alone on what?!

There has been no longer-term solar cycle influencing our current climate of the past centuries or decades.  Gotta look closer to home for drivers, such a our atmosphere's increasing insulating abilities!

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
It's the insulation stupid !

Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
By David Rind — January 2009

15) Potholer goes on to equate CAGW with real scientific theories such as plate tectonics, evolution, atomic theory. There is no comparison; in reality, the positive-feedback CO2 idea was thought up in the 1980's because they just could not think of what else could be driving up the temperature, is that simple. Hansen and others at the time, knew nothing about the effects of longer-term solar cycles on the climate.
Well here's another Lord Frolly lie.
To begin with there is no "CAGW Theory" and I challenge the Lord or his minions to produce a page that claims such a thing, I'd love to see how it's written up, and by whom.

CAGW is the seldom spoken, but oh so realistic outcome of the geophysical trends we are witnessing upon our planet.  To doubt the potential for CAGW, is to ignore the local catastrophe's playing out upon our planet with increasing regularity.

To doubt the potential for CAGW, is to ignore certain down to Earth realities, such as a warming planet WILL melt off it's cryosphere; 
melting crysosphere will flow into oceans and increase ocean levels;
increasing ocean levels will inundate coastal cities and industrial infrastructure throughout the world; ...   

Now, Lord Frolly and self-certain Republican/libertarians how is that not a catastrophic situation?

Does Lord Frolly also not believe that oceans are indeed rising?

Lord Frolly please explain how the flow of your logic sees this situation unfolding?  Though I suspect you'll ignore me as usual.  All you see is enemies lusting after your wealth and power - an enemy behind every text book, plotting some sinister plotter pretense to shackle you into "our" OneWorldGovernment. 

Enough of that, now onto your dishonest claims about the sun variability - the sun has been closely observed since the satellite era began, nothing special is happening there to explain what's happening here.  

Lord Frolly, when will you get real?  

16) The whole video is based on false premises, and is found to be without any scientific merit.
Nonsense - Lord Frolly has presented us with an excellent example of how faux-science within an agenda driven echo-chamber functions.  Misrepresent the science and omit all that disputes one's own claims - refuse to entertain any objections.  

Lord Frolly's transparent intention is to keep their troops in line, by continuing to sow confusion and distrust of real experts.  

Learning about what we are doing to our planet is the last thing these shills will ever do.

Unfortunately we're all in this together and a few overly rich, overly egomaniacal, overly stupid, and overly powerful people have created this faux-science echo-chamber tailor-made for their Republican/libertarian crowd, and the rest of us are too comfortable in our status quo, so collectively we continue allowing them to get away with their game.

The only thing that's sure any more is that our children will damn us all for our complacency and intentional ignorance of convenience.

Lord Frolly Monckton, what you refuse to recognize is that science is not the stuff of a mutual admiration society of trash talking has-beens, getting back at imagined enemies.

The copious output of your 1000Frolly YouTube propaganda channel is all about misrepresenting the published science; ignoring serious science, and justifying yourselves by outscreaming serious experts and professionals, who don't have the time for your games.

I'll admit the Murdochs/Kochs/Texas Oil spawned mentality has won.  

Forty, fifty years now, we could have been preparing and forestalling all that we're witnessing these days.  We had our chance at humanity's finest hour and dropped the ball. 

The powers that be were too busy trying get rich to have any time for considering the heath of this planet we depend on for everything.  It's that disconnect that most amazes me - sure greed is good and too much is never enough, but not recognizing down to earth physical boundaries and the realities of compounding math and the need to protect our biosphere - I can't wrap my head around that degree of self-obsession.  Haven't Republican/libertarian type ever heard of enlightened self interest?

But enough of Lord frolly's dog and pony show.  First I have Peter Hadfield's, aka potholer54, video so you can see for yourselves.  This is followed by his notes of the video, followed by the index of the 2001 IPCC Physical Basis Working Group as an example of what real science looks like.  

27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC

Published on May 9, 2013 - (the following description was offered with the video)

CORRECTION at 8:10 -- Solar output was around 4% weaker during the Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period, not 6% (Ref "The faint young sun problem" - Georg Feulner, American Geophysical Union Review of Geophysics, 2012). This does not change the challenge to explain why the Earth was much hotter than today when the sun was much weaker than today. 

SOURCES are listed in the next video, because of space constraints. Predictable posts are answered here. Please spend your time and effort in addressing the evidence presented in the video:

"This is a straw man argument. Of course skeptics [sic] accept that CO2 warms the atmosphere,
We just don't think the warming will be catastrophic."

Answer: "Skeptics" have all kinds of positions on climate science, depending on their personal beliefs and feelings. This video addresses those critics who claim there is no evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature. Whether you want to call such changes "catastrophic" or benign, or terrible, or bad, or good is your feeling, and therefore outside the scope of the science. 

"Correlation does not mean causation." 

Answer: It is still coinsistent with the theory. And where a mechanism has been shown that should produce a correlation, then the correlation is yet more confirmation that a theory is correct. 

"Here's a piece of evidence -- there's no hot spot"

Apart from the fact that this 'no hot spot' idea is another piece of Internet mythology, the idea of the 'hot spot' is based on a computer model. If you think computer models are all wrong, then the lack of a hot spot must be wrong.

And critics -- please try to address the evidence shown in this video, rather than repeat myths that have been dealt with in my previous videos. If you're not sure, check them out:

"Warming is due to galactic rays/cosmic rays/the sun"
See: 2. Climate Change -- the objections 20 - Are cosmic rays causing global warming? Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord? 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

"There was a consensus about global cooling in the 1970s"
See: 3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth

"There's been no warming since 1998."
See: 8. Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling? 8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' 24 - Global warming has stopped? Again??

"The climate always changes"
See: 8. 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural? Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling? Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers

"31,000 scientists disagree"
See: 9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists

"We're headed for another ice age"
See: 10. Climate Change - An imminent ice age debunked 21 - "Earth facing mini-ice age!!" say the media. Now for the science....

"Global warming will cause more hurricanes"
See: 11. Climate Change -- Hurricanes, atolls and coral

"A recent study found that warming will be just 1.64 degrees"
See: 12 - 'Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming...' or maybe not.

"Global warming is drowning islands "
See: 13 - Misleading media reports on sea level rise - a case study 11. Climate Change -- Hurricanes, atolls and coral

"Global warming will bring an end to snow in the UK"
See: 14 - BP oil spills and an end to snow

"Greenland/arctic ice is not melting"
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice

"There is very little amplification due to CO2 rise"
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity

"There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past"
See: 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural? Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers

"Himalayan glaciers are not melting."
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers

"[So-and-so] said...."
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 4 -- Quotes and misquotes

"It's been shown that climate scientists engaged in fraud"
See: 22 -- Climategate mark 2 -- the quotes and the context 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

"The Medieval Warm Period proves...."
See: 23 -- Medieval Warm Period -- fact vs. fiction

"CO2 always lags temperature rise"
See: 25 - Climate Change -- The "800-year lag" unravelled

"CO2 makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere"
"I don't believe it"
See: 26 -- Science vs. the Feelies

"Evidence never convinces me, I believe whatever I hear in my head."
See: A psychiatrist


Oh and Lord frolly, stop telling people there's no science behind our understanding!

IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

(2013 is even more comprehensive

2. Observed Climate Variability and Change
3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

Anonymous at 6:35 AM,
I do not post Tricky Dick code loaded comments !
If you have something to complain about DO IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH, then we may find something to discuss !

PS. Maybe you don't mind the Russians deciding who we elect President, I totally resent it!

The bottom line is Trump is a pathological liar, he has the depth of knowledge of spoiled rich brat, that never reads or thinks about anything but himself. If that's what you love in a leader, stick around and watch him lead you and the rest of the sheople to hell. The only ones who are going to benefit from his Presidency are the ultra rich, the rest of us working stiffs are going to get screwed.

Don't believe me - but please do remember my words, because they will come back to haunt you someday.