#14b Debating GOP Disconnect AGW - Gore’s AIT(1-4) vs SPPI, Monckton's 35 lies

 *  EM’s response:   Okay, you’ve got me on this one. I did in fact confuse myself between climate science in the media vs the climate science community. I was mainly referencing outlandish claims from Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”  by relying on the Republican's outlandish PR fraudster the Lord Monckton - now that's what self inflicted delusion is all about, allow me to explain.  

In this continuation of my debate with EM I have allowed him to distract me with SPPI's 35 Errors, Lies and Deceptions contrivance that their "Lord" Monckton has so successfully astro-turfed all over the internet.  I will demonstrate that SPPI and Lord Monckton are in fact the malicious liars who ruthlessly politicize the science in order to confuse and stupefy innocents like my pal EM and to further their self-interested myopic and destructive agenda.  Here I review points 1 through 4: sea level claims, islands drowning, thermohaline circulation slowdown, CO2 drives temps.

After my introduction

*   I will first quote SPPI’s Lord M’s claim.  

*   Then share Gore’s relevant AIT quotes so you can decide for yourselves how honesty (or not) it was described.  

*   This is followed with some commentary intended to add perspective to the Lord’s spin to offer ‘the rest of the story’ regarding the issue in question.  

*   Rounding up the exercise I’ll include authoritative links and some YouTube videos to offer genuine learning opportunities regarding the questions raised. 

    

also see: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/search?q=monckton

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2010/08/unauthorized-sorting-of-lord-chris.html

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

“A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton.”

Professor Abraham's presentation can be found at: 

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

BACK TO THE DEBATE:

Reviewing Lord Monckton’s 35 SPPI Errors, Lies and Deceptions Regarding “An Inconvenient Truth.”  (The cloned version I copied for this came from Scottthong.wordpress.)

part 2 - Debating a sock-puppet

AL won't respond over here, so I'm sharing his response to my previous post made regarding Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk where he denounces the scientific understanding of CO2 with truly childish distractions and misrepresentations that any honestly interested person ought to be able to see right through.  

Unfortunately most of his fans are not honest, they are brainwashed into thinking the whole world is against them and that if scientists have information they don't like, they should ignore it - in fact it's worse, in their minds it's OK to misrepresent the facts, fabricate scandals, attack scientific leaders and champion kindergarten arguments if in support of their political ideology.
(touch up edits 11/25/15 am)

AL (9:46 AM -11/23/15) writes: 

+citizenschallengeYT Not sure what you want with that link, but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with

"This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science"

isn't directly proof of anything. The links on that page are just links to other blogs and not scientific papers (You should take a closer look.  Plus you'll find links within links, just gotta poke around.).

I already know the alarmists point of view and as I said it's easily refuted with science and the latest data that we have. (OK, so when are you going to share some of that!?)

___________________________________

AL, I don't believe you do understand anything of substance about the "alarmists point of view." 

I infer this from your shallow response that indicates you won't even allow yourself to actually read any of that information. Let alone digest any of it, nah you're too busy throwing up transparent defenses.  Pretending you have some "science and latest data" that disputes the accepted understanding - but never coming up with more than arm-waving, which I looked at in my previous post.
___________________________________

"… but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with … isn't directly proof of anything."

AL, you serious?  Looking for "direct proof" from an internet dialogue?  

Why are you playing this game?  Serious people appreciate that there is no "proof" in Natural Sciences.

It's always been about a preponderance of evidence, appreciation for understood natural laws and the flow of time, good faith assessment of evidence and learning from mistakes, along with a healthy sense of self-skepticism, such is the currency of "science" and learning to understand our planet.  

AL, I wonder if you appreciate the concept of consensus and to the best of our current understanding.

  

Beyond that I think you're confused about our discussion.  Let's go back to the start of our "debate" - you said:

debating a sock-puppet and another collection of informative links

This time we're at a comments thread to a YouTube video

The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate by professor Ivar Giaever

By virtue of sharing a Nobel for "experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors" back in 1973 - contrarians bathe Ivar in an aura of climate science authority which the old guy certainly does not possess.
(fyi - http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html )

  

Heck he even admits he's only done the most cursory reviews of articles - evidently he hadn't been paying attention to anything outside his microscopic tunneling and solid state physics for the past half century - not much of a background for pontificating on climate science, but oh boy, pontificate he certainly does.  Incidentally, it's not too difficult noticing that he nurses a grudge.

In any event, I owe "AL" an apology, he did post this list of specifics way back on the 9th, sorry for missing that, glad I stubbled on it this evening.   I don't want to ignore your challenge so better late than never (I have not changed or eliminated any of your words).  I'll keep it simple and let the links fill in the rest of the story. (I did some touch up editing 11/24/15 am)

______________________________________________________________

AL wrote Nov 9, 2015:  +citizenschallengeYT

"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."

____________________

Nonsense - You can find countless sources explicitly explaining that mankind is to blame for the warming of the past 50 years.  Claiming otherwise is an out and out lie!  Stop denying the CO2 we've put in the air, and the impacts of that increased atmospheric insulation on our climate.  Besides human drivers of global warming are not limited to increasing greenhouse gases, but that's a whole different compounding story I'll save for another time.

IPCC 2007

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 2. Causes of change

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2013 - IPCC PRESS RELEASE

Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary - Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - 27 September 2013

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VlPZrulyHww

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOW MUCH GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED?

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-is-only-part-human-caused