It was Tuesday when I first heard that The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton would be debating yet another climate scientist. I had first seen The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton when I was undercover at Copenhagen, but I didn't approach him at that time as I could not remember the protocol for addressing royalty.
When I discovered that in fact he was to debate a warmist blogger I immediately shot off a series of emails to The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton's head servant. I instructed him to proceed to the Keep immediately and inform the Lord that it was nothing more than a trap.
There is nothing to be gained from debating a warmist blogger I told him. You'll only lend them credibility. You are a climate scientist after all, a royal one at that, you should surely be seeking out Al Gore or James Hansen. I received no reply of course. The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton will reply if he wishes to.
I watched the debate online using my computer. I had expected a long drawn out affair. So imagine my surprise when The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton won the debate almost immediately by raising the point that the world renowned skeptical scientist, Dr R. T. Pinker, had in fact already proved that manmade global warming is a fraud and had done so before the debate had even started.
Tim Lambert was left flailing for a response. In desperation he resorted to mere ad hominem, playing a recording of a womans voice to paint Dr Pinker, the world renowned skeptical scientist, as a mere woman. Most of the audience, like myself, gasped at the sheer sexism inherent in this. Some of the girls in the audience even fainted.
In my frankly unbiased view, The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton can be considered to have won the debate simply because of this turn of events and that his little pictures of crowns are better than James Hansen's little pictures of crowns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe the correct way of addressing the Lord is "Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore". No wonder that Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, Victor of the Falklands War and Vanquisher of Al Gore didn't give you any reply when you addressed Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore in such a disrespectful manner.
ReplyDeleteBut you are right about the debate: Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore really wiped the ass of that ad-hominem-slinging son-of-deported-prisoners Tim Lambert.
Indeed Baron.
ReplyDeleteI found I could hardly contain myself from gushing freely when His Lordliness had to explain to Lambert, and especially Pinker, what her work actually meant.
Poor dear, and who else could have given her the benefit of such munificent expertise - for free too!
But of course the warmists will spin it every which way in order to maintain their scam.
Inferno,
ReplyDeleteI'm having a crisis. As we all know, climate models are nothing but a fraud; it's just warmist Maoist Stalinists using Nintendos with Game Genie trick codes, when real scientists look out the window and can see global cooling snow.
Still, I sometimes use Microsoft Excel to make some graphs to show people that global warming is a hoax. But it occurred to me - I'm still using a computer. Is that allowed in pure blog science?
I ask because Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to show that the warmists are all wrong.
Is this the example we should follow? Is the maximum calculation allowed in blog science doable on an envelope or dinner napkin? Or can I still use Excel?
I was wondering: does His full title really have two consecutive 'ands' in it? Wow, He's really regal, as He is above the rules of mere grammar.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Tim's recording of Pinker's response to
ReplyDeleteMonkton, pointing out where Monkton had misunderstood her paper, was not to discredit her as a woman but to show that she and her work back the IPCC position, and that, in her expert view of her own work, Monkton is misrepresenting it.
But different people will have different perceptions.
I wish you'd all stop showing Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore such disrespect by calling them "He".
ReplyDeleteThey (i.e. LCM3VMoBCoHMSatCCVotFWaVoAG) are members of the Aristocracy and entitled to use the royal "we". We should refer to them (i.e. LCM3VMoBCoHMSatCCVotFWaVoAG) as "they", not "he".
I was fortunate to be at the debate, and I must say how refreshing it was to be surrounded by an audience of fellow thinkers. I'm sure that many of them were Denial Depot regulars. In fact, I think I recognized Chek's characteristic profile on the other side of the hall, and there was someone who could well have been Sledgehammer for the truth, but the security guards kept him out.
ReplyDeleteSome of the new science ideas from the audience could merit attention by Dr Inferno. For example, the intriguing suggestion that water vapor evaporating from the oceans is the main cause of CO2 in the atmosphere. And that sea levels changes are really just a manifestation of continental drift - we know how long it took that theory to be finally accepted!
Another gentleman raised the issue of the 1976 United Nations ban on weather-control technology. Why not just dust off these banned technologies and use them to bring the weather back into line? Why not indeed! Clearly the UN involvement in both weather-control and the ICCCP is a disturbing new angle.
But the day really belonged to Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore.
The self-styled "Tim Lambert of Maroubra" was left to employ cheap theatrical tricks such as using quotes from climate scientists.
Lambert had no comeback when Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold showed that when calculating the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere attributed to man you have to include the trillions of tons of CO2 locked up in rocks 750 millions years ago.
It is clear that man's impact is insignificant.
Dirk,
Blog Science Expert Reviewer
75 posts to Blog Professorship
You people are just fools. Yes, you deniers are so uneducated. Not like us elite educated and intelligent followers of the theory of AGW. You should be listening to the scientists like my colleagues and I do and trust everything they say without question. People like Al Gore and to a lesser extent Phil Jones, Mike Mann and Rajendra Pachauri. These guys are my hero’s and I worship the very ground they walk on. I believe anything they say and will not scrutinise them at all because they are scientists and that proves they are totally incorruptible and would never err or fib. Nor for that matter would any Government. Well, let me clarify that, no leftist Government anyway. Only conservative Governments lie. You are such fools. And for your information Lambert wiped the floor with Monckton. He won the debate. Just check out his blog and he will tell you himself. What a man. A true gracious and humble scientist. I would do anything he told me to.
ReplyDeleteThe credibility of the comments of Anonymous 22:43 may be judged by his reference to "Monckton" a person who, on all evidence, does not exist, although he does appear to shared one name with our esteemed and trustworthy Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore.
ReplyDeleteMore bad news for the ad-hominem-slinging Mr Lambert, spawn of deported criminals. Phil Jones, CRU master fraudster, has admitted that there is no warming:
ReplyDeleteB - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no [...] global warming?
J - Yes [...]
Reply to "rewinn" 23:51. My credibility is fine my denialist friend as is the credibility of the infallible Scientists who told me in a peer reviewed paper that he “Monckton” in fact does exist. The debate on this has long been settled. However, I must concede that his name has been changed by consensus to something that is easier to pronounce and is thus more “user friendly”.
ReplyDeleteWhat a nasty "trick" of that person Tim Lambert to play a recording of a woman to pretend it was the voice of the well-known sceptical scientist Dr Pinker. We all know that famous scientists cannot be women. Einstein, Galileo, Monckton, they were all men. Of course, men and women are equal, it's just that God has given them different tasks.
ReplyDeletePS I do hope Lord Monckton remembers the words of the Lord when he said you are only Lord because the Lord has made you Lord.
ReplyDeleteDr Tim Lambert played a females voice to demonstrate that Christopher Monckton had not researched, or communicated with Prof R. Pinker, who he has repeatedly referred to as a male at several speeches. Monckton even apologised during the debate for “inadvertently” changing Pinker’s sex. Any researcher will agree that not checking the credibility of someone you reference is poor form... Monckton clear does not.
ReplyDeleteLambert made several extremely good – and scientifically valid – points. Primarily, that the error of trends increase as the period over which the trend is estimated from decreases. That is, the error on Monckton’s trend which says the Earth is cooling is huge! And that the 150 year trends are more accurate than 50 or 30 year trends. Lambert showed that trends shorter than 20~30 years are too short given the stochastic data set - Monckton agreed! Monckton continued to say it therefore nullified the UN trends, but did not comment on the validity of his shorter-term trends which were drawn from the same data. This was lost on the general public.
Anonymous you poor misled alarmist goon,
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that the longer period you have, the greater will the errors in your trend be. It is as simple as this: a longer period will contain a larger number of errors! The optimal data set for computing a trend is therefore of size 1. Anybody with even a cursory understanding of trend science could tell you that!
And keep your cheap ad hominem attacks away from this blog!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt may well be that the Great Mockton was surprised by Lambert's claim that Dr.Pinker was a woman, but clearly this claim is completely false. As I explained above, the greatest scientists in history are all men. So either the real Dr. Pinker is a man, or, if she turns out to be a woman, her research should be taken with a pinch of salt.
P.O.E. Slaw,
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that Lambert (hmm, any sheep in the family?) wanted to ridicule Dr Pinker because he (Dr Pinker) is a skeptic.
"The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution…
ReplyDeleteWhen will you deniers get it? Wake up to yourselves. We are facing a planetary emergency and you still read this sort of rubbish. Absolutely no scientific basis for this at all. Don’t you know the science is already settled? You should all be tried for High Treason with Monckton.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC…
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site…
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.
> The optimal data set for computing a trend is
ReplyDelete> therefore of size 1. Anybody with even a cursory
> understanding of trend science could tell you
> that!
It is mathimatically impossible to generate a trend from a data set of one sample. The errors average out when computing the trend - hence the word TREND...
These lists contain a few female scientists who progressed humanity - and don't give a toss about climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Nobel_Prize_laureates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-21st-century_female_scientists
And yes, Pinker is female:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~pinker/
I see some disturbing comments here.
ReplyDelete"Yes, you deniers are so uneducated. "
"The debate on this has long been settled. "
"Lambert made several extremely good – and scientifically valid – points."
"When will you deniers get it? Wake up to yourselves. We are facing a planetary emergency and you still read this sort of rubbish. "
Inferno, your moderation policy shows some cracks. Not as bad as the error-ridden IPCC reports, but you should be more attentive so those filthy, repugnant ad hominems no longer slip through.
The warmist loons are spouting their venom everywhere, poisoning the pure scientific debate we are having. From reading this blog just once a week I have learned more science in 3 months than 20 years in school.
Let me note these are all anonymous comments. Well Anonymous, take my example. I have a REAL pseudonym. I am no coward and don't hide behind anonymousity.
Are you all the same Anonymous? I guess you are members of those evil Hitler Jugend that almost killed and decapitated and murdered our honourable Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore when he was in Copenhagen, peacefully and amicably excercising his right to free speech. Look at the face of that SS wannabee in the background. He painted his face (witness the evil dripping off) to not be recognizable. But we are not misled by that. We are much smarter, eco-communistas! We know your tentacles are everywhere.
Good that the eminent Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore warned us from you. His predictions are more sound than those of the IPCC. He doesn't need no stinkin' climate models to predict the future! Oh no. He simply KNOWS all this already and is merely sharing his knowledge with us mortals to prevent us from making a big mistake and spend a lot of money on wind mills and solar panels.
George said:
ReplyDelete"female scientists who progressed humanity - and don't give a toss about climate change"
I always thought something like that women are better men than men. Your quote is just the evidence I need to know it is TRUE. Once again, witness how much I have learned from a seemingly simple, but oh so profound blog comment.
Let women run the country and send the men back into the mines to dig up coal; global warming solved.
scepticTank. At great monetary expense a peer reviewed scientific analysis of your pseudonym, performed by reputable, Nobel Prize winning members of the IPCC has established the true identity of your inner self and we can relate. However, we Anonymous Warminista's shall NEVER betray our true identity just as our scientist overlords shall never betray their data sets or computer codes. We shall not be swayed. Not by FOI laws and certainly not by the likes of a curer of HIV et al. As has been foretold by the Goracle, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar we are facing a planetary emergency and our children should be scared into nocturnal incontinence.
ReplyDeleteOf course one can compute a trend from 1 data point! Let me show you: the data point is 3. The trend is (3-3)/0 = 1
ReplyDeleteThat was not so hard, was it?
> Of course one can compute a trend from 1 data
ReplyDelete> point! Let me show you: the data point is 3.
> The trend is (3-3)/0 = 1
> That was not so hard, was it?
This is a really good point to blog about as it is the king-pin of interpreting data on climate change.
The equation you used is the solution if there are two data points. A trend is actually the best fit of a linear regression (lets only consider linear trends here…). Mathematically this means finding a and b which minimised the following equation for a given data set x_i = y_i where i is the sample index:
Sum_{i}([a*x_i + b – y_i]^2) for all i.
The equation you provided gives the gradient of the line, a, or trend if and only if there are two data points (the unique solution is of course the line which goes through both points). Now, if you only have one data point, there are an infinite number of lines which can go through a single point. That is, we need to minimise the above equation with only one data point, at for example x = 2, y = 3:
0 = a*2 + b – 3
- There is one equation with two unknowns and therefore an infinite number of solutions and therefore no trend...
Feel free to check any maths site or text book regarding linear regression. Comments welcome.
Thank you George and baron Von Monckhofen for your invaluable contributions. There is now so much science going on right now in this thread that I can hear the frantic whispering going on in Oslo City Hall
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDeleteHow can there be an infinite number of solutions to that equation? For instance, it doesn't work for a=0 and b=0, or for a=1 and b=2. So it is clear that the number of solutions is not infinite.
And don't you knowm that if you divide a number by itself (like 0/0 as I did above) you always get 1?
Anonymous uttered something like "we are facing a planetary emergency and our children should be scared into nocturnal incontinence."
ReplyDeleteBut it is not the emergency you're thinking. We all know a new ice age is imminent (which was unanimously predicted in the seventies when science was still pristine and unspoiled because the scientists still kissed their wives goodbye in the morning and came home in time for dinner and after that played with their kids in the garden so they didn't have the time to plan anything nefarious) and your kids will find themselves lying on yellow ice in the morning.
I'm the only Real Anonymous, all the other so-called morons are pure shameless usurpers.
ReplyDeleteAnd for sure "George" isn't the highly esteemed George Will, a preferred herald, who manages to enforce and maintain a very balanced and scientific discussion in spite of all the money he gets from Exxon; nor is he George W. Bush, who managed to increase the amount of CO2 we proud Americans release - which is obviously the only reason why the Global Cooling didn't occur yet.
Of course you can compute a trend from one data point, just as one can conclude from the fact that Phil Jones is a fraud, every climate scientist is a fraud. Easy is as easy does.
ReplyDelete> How can there be an infinite number of
ReplyDelete> solutions to that equation? For instance, it
> doesn't work for a=0 and b=0, or for a=1
> and b=2. So it is clear that the number of
> solutions is not infinite.
The size of the set of solutions is infinite - this does not means it spans the entire real plane. So of course one can select an a,b which is not a solution.
Here is an example of 10 solutions, from which I hope you get the point:
a b
... ....
3.00000 -3.00000
3.00001 -3.00002
3.00002 -3.00004
3.00003 -3.00006
3.00004 -3.00008
3.00005 -3.00010
3.00006 -3.00012
3.00007 -3.00014
3.00008 -3.00016
3.00009 -3.00018
3.00010 -3.00020
... …..
Obviously I incremented a by 0.00001, you could increment a by ANY number (0.000000000001, 0.000000000000000001 etc…) from ANY number to ANY number (e.g. –infinity to + infinity) and still find a solution.
The concept is extremely simple: How straight lines can you draw through a single point. Get a pen, paper and rule and try it, it may take some time...
> And don't you knowm that if you divide a
> number by itself (like 0/0 as I did above)
> you always get 1?
I said you theory was incorrect, not your arithmetic.
For the record: I’m not George Bush, or anyone else... I’m an old retired mathematician in New-Zealand. I’m likely to be dead in 20 years and don’t really care about climate change – my pet hate is however bad maths.
There is no data point but the one true data point and that data point is actually a question labeled "TRUTH?". And the trend is going from NO to YES. Nothing in George's "consensus" mathematics can tell you that. Since climategate everything in the known world is thrown into doubt. I now lay at night in sleepless worry that the Sun might not come back. And if it doesn't it will be Michael Mann's fault.
ReplyDeleteI for one welcome our obsolete aristocratic overlord!
ReplyDeleteWhy is my captcha dykfib? I resent that!
I hope someone can post a video link as I was not able to see all of Mr. Lambert's education. However, one thing His Excellency pointed out that completely demolishes the IPCC and has even farther-reaching implications is how CO2 was once much higher and yet the Earth was covered in ice! Of course, this violates the IPCC's sensitivity calculation, but it is also inconsistent with His Most Noble And Righteousness's correct back-of-the-envelope calculation for the Earth's climate sensitivity. Given the complete presentation of the relevant factors (CO2 and albedo, as shown) what we can clearly conclude is that there is no possible explanation for the Snowball Earth!!! Ergo, it never happened, because the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
ReplyDeleteThat point also interested me because it confirmed something I recently learned from one of the few other good minds in climate science, Richard Lindzen:
The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's.
So we see how great minds often think alike: the fact of the Snowball Earth in spite of high CO2 levels, or the fact that one should have happened with a fainter sun, clearly show that the IPCC's sensitivity calculation is too high.
scepticTank. You speak of a coming Ice Age? Oh my, your pseudonym is so fitting a description of your scientific understanding and blatant cognitive dissonance. You deniers are so predictable, and so lagging in a correct interpretation of the science. It has been decreed, again by scientific consensus that when speaking of Anthropogenic Global Warming you should now use the term Climate Change. Thus your scenario of yellowing ice in frozen gardens clearly visible at midday and the result of distressed infant bladder discharge fits perfectly with a coming Ice Age. As for that matter does any weather event. Why are you so blind?
ReplyDeleteThis is why we accept that the science must be explained to the scientific laity by none other than “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar, who has a clear understanding of the science. This is why he is now the possessor of esteemed Nobel Prize.
We must continue to produce such scientifically sound documentaries that inform the populace such as his. It is conceded however, and in fact intended, that the production of such films will result in increased infant nocturnal incontinence. As, however, it is a planetary emergency, the end justifies the means.
George,
ReplyDeleteIf you are a retired mathematician, then you should now that in mathematics there are no absolute truths.
I’ve got one thing to say to you deniers. 4000 scientists. That’s an indisputable fact. The prime minister of Australia says in fact that they are just scientists in white coats that go around and measure things. I have NO reason to doubt him I mean look at his political record. (Very similar to Obama’s outstanding record for which he in fact won a valuable Nobel Peace Prize) These 4000 dedicated scientists all agree that the globe has been warming and that we have been dangerously contributing to the “planetary emergency” that we are currently in. There are no scientists that disagree and any of them that do disagree are not real scientists. By that I mean they are just Physicists, Engineers, Geologists, Mathematicians and the like so are not able to comment on environmental science which is such a specific issue. So the IPCC made one mistake reporting on the Himalayan Glaciers. Does that one mistake mean you should want to question anything else in their report? Of course not. The scientists have nothing to gain from embellishing any data to further their research and that’s one mistake in over 20 years of research. Anyway they are scientists, and to suggest that they may be influenced or corrupted in their research is ludicrous. They are only paid measly sums by Governments. Governments like the ones mentioned above. Not like the hundreds of millions paid by Big Oil to sceptics. I say leave the IPCC alone so they can continue with their noble work. But please, for your children’s sake. Listen to them.
ReplyDeleteI was initially willing to listen to this Lambert person's sophistries... until he chose, on his blog, to make fun of Sir Lord Monckton's very long nose, a symptom of Pinocchio's disease. That shocked me.
ReplyDeleteWarmists are beasts and nothing is beneath them.
Listen, Anonymous, you warmist riff-raff, you will not impress us with how many of your "scientists" believe in global warming. After all, this is still a democracy. For every scientist, there are 100s of god-fearing Americans who know that global warming is a scam. Or are you going to tell us that the opinion of a scientist is more important than that of any other person? Is that your idea of democracy?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are so naive! Scientists are only interested in grant money to pay for their luxuries and depraved pleasures, and in creating a New World Order with Al Gore as Hegemon. Luckily there are a few exceptions, people with integrity like Pat Michaels, Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore, and the highly esteemed owner and commenters of this blog.
Oh dear, Baron and POE (I hope you are not offended that I have neglected to refer to you by your full titles) but you sirs are the ones who are naive, you evil members of the intelligencia, hell bent on derailing the noble cause of “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar and others just as noble such as Rajendra Pachauri, writer of steamy novels. (again I must apologise for using the shortened version of his Pachauri’s rightful title) You think that it’s prudent to question everything and refuse to trust your duly elected officials? Come now, we are in a modern world where these so called conspiracy’s are a thing of the past. It has been said by the great philosophers of Split Enz that history never repeats so why do you not believe this. I am as always amazed at your lowly understanding of the world. Anonymous at 01:26 declared that he/she had but one thing to say. Well I must add to that comment. Although there are many more points supportive of our “the truthers” position and I leave you with this to ponder. Do you really think that they would give a Nobel Prize to anyone? Come now. Please enlighten yourselves and get with the program. Must rush now because I have to get to a protest.
ReplyDelete> George,
ReplyDelete>
> If you are a retired mathematician, then
> you should now that in mathematics there
> are no absolute truths.
Mathematics relies on a few basic axioms (something taken as true as it is obvious, but can not actually be mathematically proven). For example: addition i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 . I think everyone living in an educated society can agree that 1+1=2 – does anyone on this blog dispute this? The maths for climate change is built on the same maths that made your computer work, allowed your house to be built, lets you buy stuff at the shop, lets you call people overseas etc... I’d take my hat off to anyone that can PROVE that the maths which has been rigorously tested over hundreds of years is NOT applicable to, and only to, climate change for what ever reason.
Do people now understand why a trend can not be determined from one data point? And that, the error in a trend is reduced as the number of data points from which the trend is calculated increases as the errors from the individual measurements average out? Any therefore a 150 year trend is more accurate than a 10 year trend from the same data set? Lambert was not saying that you can’t get a trend from 10, 20, 30 years, he was saying you shouldn’t as the error is extremely large. This is the graph he showed in the debate.
I think people on this blog could do with reading up on logical arguments and mathematical proofs. This is actually an entire branch of mathematics which can build _unquestionable_ arguments if done correctly. It may work better convincing people as opposed to “this guy said this, therefore its true...”, or “We can’t explain event x, therefore event y couldn’t of happened”.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhile others may consider you naive warmist riff-raff, and they wouldn't be wrong, I've gotta say you're a breath of fresh air compared to the normal climmunists you run into on other blogs or occasionally this one. I mean, do you have any idea how long it's been since Lambert (for example) has even mentioned Al Gore on his blog, let alone acknowledged his role as the coordinator of the whole scam? Whereas WUWT has mentioned him several times this month. You ought to consider, though, why it is that it's only on climate denial blogs that you can daily have a robust debate on Al Gore's obesity?
What do the typical climofascists offer instead? Online "Layman's Guides to the alledged "science," complete with "references" to hide the fact that it was all just copied out of An Inconvenient Truth. Lists of "literature" (virtually unreadable, written to sound impressive but are probably just Tiramisu recipes) claiming to provide evidence of AGW (and questionably claiming not to have been authored by Gore). "Climate models", George's "mathematics," "debunkings", anything, really to change the subject away from the size of Al Gore's house.
So I wanted to thank you for being honest enough not to waste our times with these sorts of distractions and side issues and keeping the debate right where it belongs: on Al Gore.
To briefly add to POE's point, certainly one shouldn't hide behind "scientists" and "experts" in a democracy, and politicians can better choices for where to get your opinions -- especially when they stand up to the scientists and make sure they don't put anything over the top in the EPA reports -- but you should really only listen to them when they are the duly elected representatives of real, hard-working Americans, not when they're losers like Gore or they "won" with "help" from "community organizers" from ACORN.
Oh Big Fan, please keep to the subject. I feel I am sensing tension in your post. May I suggest a New Age Massage? Where is that sense of humour and enlightenment? Perhaps it has gone to the same location as the “lost” temperature records of the CRU. Even though I agree that loss of data often occurs in matters as important as this and loss of data is a perfectly valid excuse, it should certainly not be raised for an excuse with humour on such a mature and informed science blog as this. It almost makes me think, heaven forbid, that something pungent has suddenly hit you Big Fan.
ReplyDeleteI must confess however, that I am powerless to resist the temptation to include the extremely important contributions to the scientific debate and the current popular line of thought of none other than “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar. He has so much to contribute, don’t you agree?
I also feel a very honourable mention should also be made of Rajendra Pachauri Mahatma of the IPCC, Esteemed Engineer of Railroads, Guru of TERI and Swami of Steamy novels contributions . I mean these people can more than compete with the “champion” of your cause none other than the Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and the Common Cold, victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore and practiser of “voodoo science”. Much mention was made of him earlier in this forum. Please enlighten yourself...
My dear Anonymouse,
ReplyDeleteWhyever would we want to include the so-called "contributions" to so-called "science" of “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar, when he has been comprehensively vanquished (as indicated in Their noble title) by Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, Victor of the Falklands War and Vanquisher of Al Gore?
In fact, your very words raise a second point: On what grounds do you presume to grant Al Gore the titles of "“The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar", without providing any proof (e.g. letters patent of nobility) that he is entitled to such? We know, having proved it through rigourous blog science, that Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, Victor of the Falklands War and Vanquisher of Al Gore, is indeed a Lord named Christopher and Monckton, has cured HIV, MS and and the Common Cold, was single-handedly victorious in the Falklands and has vanquished Al Gore more times than the IPCC has made fundamental errors. Can you, sir, say the same of your erstwhile champion?
Give us the PROOF. Show us the DATA.
A. Nonny Muse
Anonymous @ 21:20. Thank you for your gracious term of endearment by referring to me as “my dear Anonymouse”. But I must first point out that you have mis-spelt my name. This means you surely could not have utilised computer modelling to ensure the spelling was correct. In any case I feel this rigorous scientific debate is becoming tedious as you appear to miss the patently obvious response to your question reproduced here. “On what grounds do you presume to grant Al Gore the titles of “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar", without providing any proof”
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to repeat myself to you and others on this blog? You desceptacons may have arrived at Moncktons (please accept my apologies again for abbreviation) correct title after allegedly “having proved it through rigourous blog science.” But 4000 scientists have proven his correct name via consensus. The debate on this has long been settled and there is no point discussing this elementary subject any further. The time is now for action. How many times do we have to drum this into you. I feel like I am going round in circles and am getting increasingly frustrated. Perhaps the BBC or ABC will help us get this point across to you. After all they have a proven track record of balanced reporting of the facts.
I feel I am going to have to depart your blog soon as this is getting tiresome. When will you grasp the magnitude of this issue?
I think Big Fan hits the nail on the head with this Anonymous warmist scumbag. Normally you can't discuss the Global Warming Fraud with them or soon they start giving you endless list of boring "peer reviewed" papers, incomprehensible maths and suspiciously looking plots made of fabricated data. But all he does now is shouting how many scientists there are left to support him. It seems all the climate gates have hit them hard indeed, and now that Phil Jones and Michael Mann have been proven to be frauds they cannot even come up with newly fabricated data anymore. In other words, they victory is near, my friends!
ReplyDeleteSuperDuperDenier, and what pray to Gaia is wrong with "endless lists of boring peer reviewed papers"? Feel free to read them and scrutinise them. We have nothing to hide and we stand by our record of being completely unbiased and transparent.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I find this current scourge of a warmist troll, Anonymous, quite tedious. Hallelujah that "it" admits to everything that we know ecommunist enviroatchiks religiously believe deep down inside - Gore is their god, that leftists like "it" are perfect and the vast majority right are absolutely wrong, what they think is climate science depends only on Gore/Mann/Jones/Pachauri, knowing no science but simply pointing to a few supposedly flawless alarmist scientists as holders of the truth, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut again we already know all warmist trolls are truly like that. I prefer the Gore-huggers do things like try to hide their worship of Fat Al and try to concoct scientific-sounding explanations they claim can debunk the truth of global not-warming/global cooling/global warming-but-not-by humans. This Anonymous proudly and flamboyantly flaunts all aspects of his warmer socialism.
What fun is it to hunt when the prey come in and jump on your bullets before you can even load them into your gun?
George,
ReplyDeleteYes, one can prove 1+1=2.
0 is zero, and S(x) is the number after x so that S(0) is 1, S(S(0)) is 2 and so on. Thus we have the set of natural numbers.
We define x+S(y) = S(x)+y and x+0 = x.
Then we can prove that S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0))+0 = S(S(0)), that is 1+1 = 2.
But we still don't know if it is true. Logic is really over-rated.
> We define x+S(y) = S(x)+y and x+0 = x.
ReplyDelete>
> Then we can prove that S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0))+0 = S(S(0)), that is 1+1 = 2.
Well copied from wikipedia.
You failed to grasp the point of my post. Your working does not prove the addition axiom which is hidden away as "S(x) is the number after x". 1+1=2 was an obvious example of using the addition axiom which is fundamental to all mathematics, it was intended to demonstrate that "warmers" and "coolers" all use the same math and that arguments like "in mathematics there are no absolute truths", "Nothing in George's "consensus" mathematics can tell you that." etc... don't "prove" anything.
How many of the "warmers" and "coolers" on this blog are "god fearing American's"? And what is the average level of education of "warmers" and "coolers"? Lets see if we can observe a trend...
To genetically modified organism. Oh dear. Looking at the alarming increase in ad hominem attacks it is becoming increasingly apparent that I am clearly winning this debate. The increase is of such magnitude that I am now starting to wonder if you bloggers are in fact truly real sceptics or just impostors.
ReplyDeleteYou mention my up-holding of Al Gore the mighty or more rightly “The Goracle”, great informer of the populace, possessor of Nobel Prize, Seaside Mansion, Former Vice Presidency and Oscar", as a leader, or god as it were. Well he clearly is the champion of our cause, even you must admit that. No matter what you think of him he has done more with his documentary to spread the gospel of AGW to the world than any other person that I can think of, except of course that amazing, balanced and level headed fellow James HANSEN.
In any case if you sceptics persist in your pig headed refusal to accept the clear scientific consensus all of which is the result of infallible and unquestionable scientific “peer review” you are increasingly becoming a danger to the planet’s and in fact if you draw it out to its logical conclusion humanities continued existence. As such you will eventually have to be dealt with some manner. You simply MUST come to know the truth of AGW for your own sakes as well as the rest of humanities. And think of the children, why won’t anyone think of the children? I have however complete trust in our elected officials ability to legislate in this regard. Sadly, you will come to our way of thinking eventually…
So, I shall now return to my home science blog “Android” and if you wish to be further enlightened, or ask any appropriate questions, feel free to come over and visit me and I shall enlighten you further. The floor is sufficiently wiped here as it were.
P.S, or should that be B.S!!! (Blog Script of course) It’s been fun. I love a good belly laugh, that’s why I am a warmist. So much material. Although I’m not totally sure which side of the debate now has the most.
Yours the truly
“Anonymous”
(much like the problem)
George said (10:21):
ReplyDelete"How many of the "warmers" and "coolers" on this blog are "god fearing American's"? And what is the average level of education of "warmers" and "coolers"? Lets see if we can observe a trend..."
Hmmm... interesting point. Conversely however, I wonder what percentage of posters are whacked out; tree crying; radical environmentalists? Perhaps we can observe a trend there, too.
Perhaps the BBC or ABC will help us get this point across to you. After all they have a proven track record of balanced reporting of the facts.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me but don't you realise those are both GOVERNMENT AGENCIES disseminating LEFTIST DOGMA???
That is all very well for you lefties but I will continue getting my facts from Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and the Say Anything blog.
Say Anything has just unveiled and unmasked the MICHELLE OBAMA SOCIALIST LIBRARY at the White House. When has the pathetic Beeb achieved such a scoop??? CASE CLOSED.
a recent report exposed the demographic the energy industry were trying to reach with their propaganda. young women or older uneducated males. they really did their homework after reading the majority of comments here . so there are no reputable female scientists and lord monckton is a 'climate expert '? oh dear me
ReplyDeleteWomen and their fixation for Christian Louboutin Sale can't be explained, but it exists for sure. There was a time that these Christian Louboutin Pumps were only accessible to a handful of people, but now they could be reached by almost every one. Not that these Christian Louboutin Boots had a limited supply, the problem was that these Christian Louboutin Sandals came with a very big and inflated price tag.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you can also store files on DOUG , they can only hold fewer capacity of storage than DOUG DVD and that would mean bringing a bulk of DOUG DVD COLLECTION if you have large files you want to back up such as games, music, videos and other large files.
The Ed Hardy Clothes style can be yours at very cheap rates too. Time and again we have offers hardy shirt which can ensure shopping at very reasonable rates. Maybe this year hardy shirts would be my top choice when choosing gifts for all of my families and friends, because ED Hardy Shoes is really cool and nice!
Ironic that Penis Enlargement Pills comments on a Monckton piece. The Global Warming Superheroes already think he's a bid enough dick:
ReplyDeletehttp://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/bad-guy-of-the-week/christopher-monckton-3rd-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley/
Sir Lord Viscount Monckton is a great climate scientist, so I think that his debates were so important to the people, so I love your information because it is so interesting and cool.!!
ReplyDelete