Lord Monckton taking on Green-Peace in the trenches

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The truth is a slap in the face.. isn't it?

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Rich, aren't you embarrassed to be trying to argue against the conclusion of the bodies of science whose expertise far exceeds any basic knowledge you have on climate? You either believe you are smarter than they are, or you believe they are conspiring together...either angle you are coming from really makes you out to be on the fringe. It's because you take pointers from Right Wing propaganda rather than any real science. You'll cheer at Lord Mockery only because he suits the very propaganda that you've bought into.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[zqt3344 21]

Ok so now you are an unemployed English Teacher in southern California, come to VJ off topic to save the day from the likes of me! I am sure everyone is feeling much safer and happier now.

Actually, I read what should have been 3-5 sentences that you combined into one incoherent runon sentence and thought that I might point that out to you. The rest of it is just trite.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Monckton isn't a scientist. He's an eccentric aristocrat who read some books and magazines on a sunday afternoon and came up with an armchair theory (thought to call it a theory is to give it more credence than it deserves) and tries to pass it off as being as or more authoritative than working scientists.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Ok so now you are an unemployed English Teacher in southern California, come to VJ off topic to save the day from the likes of me! I am sure everyone is feeling much safer and happier now.

Actually, I read what should have been 3-5 sentences that you combined into one incoherent runon sentence and thought that I might point that out to you. The rest of it is just trite.

Not quite, but thanks for trying. I'm off for lunch now, maybe you'll have found either a clue or a proper insult by then.

[zqt3344 21]

Now you are giving us all a Gall Stone!

The truth is a slap in the face.. isn't it?

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Rich, aren't you embarrassed to be trying to argue against the conclusion of the bodies of science whose expertise far exceeds any basic knowledge you have on climate? You either believe you are smarter than they are, or you believe they are conspiring together...either angle you are coming from really makes you out to be on the fringe. It's because you take pointers from Right Wing propaganda rather than any real science. You'll cheer at Lord Mockery only because he suits the very propaganda that you've bought into.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the scientist wannabes:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

.....

Conspiracy theorists and scientist wannabes be damned...

I'll buy anyone here a six pack of their favorite beer who can prove any of the above to be false.

I've made the offer before but none of the chicken sh!t deniers took me up on the challenge.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now you are giving us all a Gall Stone!

The truth is a slap in the face.. isn't it?

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Rich, aren't you embarrassed to be trying to argue against the conclusion of the bodies of science whose expertise far exceeds any basic knowledge you have on climate? You either believe you are smarter than they are, or you believe they are conspiring together...either angle you are coming from really makes you out to be on the fringe. It's because you take pointers from Right Wing propaganda rather than any real science. You'll cheer at Lord Mockery only because he suits the very propaganda that you've bought into.

Just doing my job, my sexy Russian female friend!

[zqt3344 21]

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

For the scientist wannabes:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

.....

Conspiracy theorists and scientist wannabes be damned...

I'll buy anyone here a six pack of their favorite beer who can prove any of the above to be false.

I've made the offer before but none of the chicken sh!t deniers took me up on the challenge.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

I love it when you talk dirty. When are you going to dump that fat old ####### of a husband and invite me over?

This is as sexy as it gets.

Ukrainian women: fact and fiction

[zqt3344 21]

An indecent proposal, oh my.................

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

I love it when you talk dirty. When are you going to dump that fat old ####### of a husband and invite me over?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An indecent proposal, oh my.................

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

I love it when you talk dirty. When are you going to dump that fat old ####### of a husband and invite me over?

You know it, my little babushka....raoorrrrrrrrr...

[zqt3344 21]

HAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHahaHHaaaaaaaaaaaa, good one! I could only hope I look as good as this babushka does when I am that old!

An indecent proposal, oh my.................

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

I love it when you talk dirty. When are you going to dump that fat old ####### of a husband and invite me over?

You know it, my little babushka....raoorrrrrrrrr...

[HAL 9000 96]

This is like climate/weather all over again. One fool says GW happens as if the man-made GW assumes it didn't. Steven at least was able to clarify that nugget of misleading information.

Furthermore, a fool would equate the human population and distribution of today with that which nucleated itself into distinct regions during the last ice ages.

On top of being recommended actual science classes, some course in human archeology and geography would be recommended.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

HAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHahaHHaaaaaaaaaaaa, good one! I could only hope I look as good as this babushka does when I am that old!

An indecent proposal, oh my.................

I am having all kinds of Gall Stones now thanks to your liberal wacko spin, make me puke!

I love it when you talk dirty. When are you going to dump that fat old ####### of a husband and invite me over?

You know it, my little babushka....raoorrrrrrrrr...

Oh, stop being so modest, my sexy Russian cupcake.

[zqt3344 21]

Hal, what are you trying to say here? Please explain?

This is like climate/weather all over again. One fool says GW happens as if the man-made GW assumes it didn't. Steven at least was able to clarify that nugget of misleading information.

Furthermore, a fool would equate the human population and distribution of today with that which nucleated itself into distinct regions during the last ice ages.

On top of being recommended actual science classes, some course in human archeology and geography would be recommended.