Monckton exposed .........

[enigma]

Part #1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4

Part #2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA

Monckton has responded to potholer's catelogue of his errors, on
the alarmist website 'wattsupwiththat.com'

Monckton's reply includes an extraordinary reversal of position on
most of them, including an outright denial of what he said
(needless to say, potholer has video tape of him saying it.)


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Swampfox]

The Monckton version:
"The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only
perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central
quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will
you get. It's a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have
actually published work in the reviewed literature, and there's not many
people who have done that. Very few people people have actually done
work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they have
preferred at the UN's climate panel to rely on computer models which are
in effect a form of guesswork."

Monckton’s only contribution to this field was an article (not a
peer-reviewed paper) in a newsletter (not a peer-reviewed journal) of
the American Physical Society in 2008, which got the science so badly
wrong that Arthur Smith (a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics
and former vice president of the National Space Society) was able to
document 125 errors.

Monckton is such an obvious phoney that it beggars belief than anyone
would walk across a street to hear what he has to say, much less pay for
the privelidge.

[bringyagrogalong]

Swampfox <noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
> enigma wrote:
> >
> > Part #1:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
>
> > Part #2:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA
>
> > Monckton has responded to potholer's catelogue of his errors, on
> > the alarmist website 'wattsupwiththat.com'
>
> > Monckton's reply includes an extraordinary reversal of position on
> > most of them, including an outright denial of what he said
> > (needless to say, potholer has video tape of him saying it.)
>
> > --
> > "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2
> > levels

> > to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

>
> The Monckton version:
> "The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only
> perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central
> quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will
> you get. It's a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have
> actually published work in the reviewed literature, and there's not many
> people who have done that. Very few people people have actually done
> work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they have
> preferred at the UN's climate panel to rely on computer models which are
> in effect a form of guesswork."
>
> Monckton s only contribution to this field was an article (not a
> peer-reviewed paper) in a newsletter (not a peer-reviewed journal) of
> the American Physical Society in 2008, which got the science so badly
> wrong that Arthur Smith (a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics
> and former vice president of the National Space Society) was able to
> document 125 errors.
>
> Monckton is such an obvious phoney that it beggars belief than anyone
> would walk across a street to hear what he has to say, much less pay for
> the privelidge.

Tony Abbott crossed the street.

'nuf said!

------

David Marr:

"There is another adage about the tabloids: that their purpose is to
persuade the working class to vote Tory. I once put this to Bob Carr.
He replied: ''I think it is incontrovertible.''

They're both right on the money, without the working class vote the
Coalition would never be able to form government.

[D Martin]

None of this is surprising... Monckton is a fraud. He claims he's some kind
of brillant mathematician. He's not even a mathematician, let alone a
brilliant one. He's just a journalist. Monckton claims he's a member of the
house of Lords. He's not, and they wish he would stop saying that. Monckton
claimed he won a Nobel prize. He didnt win anything.

"enigma" <enigm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:969d2737-be8f-49de...@s4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

[george152]

D Martin wrote:
> None of this is surprising... Monckton is a fraud. He claims he's some kind
> of brillant mathematician. He's not even a mathematician, let alone a
> brilliant one. He's just a journalist. Monckton claims he's a member of the
> house of Lords. He's not, and they wish he would stop saying that. Monckton
> claimed he won a Nobel prize. He didnt win anything.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt for you is it

[D Martin]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:lKadnWCFjJp7-kPT...@giganews.com...

Maybe you're swimming in it.

[B J Foster]

Ian MacDonald, innocent until proven guilty...declared guilty by the ALP:
"ALP suspension for Macdonald during ICAC probes"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/alp-suspension-for-macdonald-during-icac-probes/3718044

"The state parliament last week referred former Labor minister Ian
Macdonald’s Christmas 2008 granting of the Doyles Creek exploration
licence to ICAC.

It is alleged that Mr Macdonald approved the licence after inviting only
the former national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union, John Maitland to tender.

Doyles Creek Mining was chaired by Mr Maitland who also held an 11 per
cent share in the company.

NuCoal took over Doyles Creek Mining in February last year and the
project was floated on the stock exchange with a market capitalisation
of $100million".
http://www.singletonargus.com.au/news/local/news/general/government-requsets-doyles-creek-suspension/2379080.aspx


Craig Thomson, innocent until proven guilty...
http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/labor-people/craig-thomson/

[bringyagrogalong]

B J Foster <plagiarist...@yahoo.com.invalid> copied:

(snip drunken rant)

What's that got to do with Monckton you retard.

And speaking of retards

Tell us again how you've seen "mafioso enforcers operate with more
subtlety and tact" than "Labor bouncers" who manhandled Peter Slipper
into 
the Speakers Chair. ROTFL

ergo: "Watch how Slipper is manhandled into the Speaker's chair by
two 
Labor  bouncers. As he turns to look back, one grips his arm and
literally forces him to continue to the chair".

And do you still stand by this: "The video is extraordinary. Every
Australian should watch it, to understand how the Australian Labor
party operates".

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What a fucking first-class, ocean-going galah.

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/218079b1c9a2435c

Now were you pissed, or are you insane?

And was this mother of all fuck-ups the reason why you disappeared
from Usenet for a week?

[george152]

I'm not the one making claims that are just plain wrong but then global
warming is a cult and you have to lie for your cult.....

[D Martin]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:IJ-dnV0u9aYJKkLT...@giganews.com...

How about you point out specifically what you think is wrong?
This might help:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/christopher-monckton

As I said, a complete fraud.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Why don't you redo his calculation below, and show us the correct
non-fraudulent answers:

Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in
Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if
a) Australia alone and
b) the whole world
cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s
emissions?

Answer a)
Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A
stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2
concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts
per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have
added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2
concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in
Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in
2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…
So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and
Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The
IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the
logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it
expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would
happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (that’s the real
meaning of Flannery’s 1000-year point, and it doesn’t do him any favours).

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57%
of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – *wait for it, wait
for it – a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius*, or around one-twenty-thousandth
of a Celsius degree.* Your estimate of _a thousandth of a degree was a
20-fold exaggeration_ – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you
that, of course.

Answer b)
Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7
ln[(412-0.55)/412] < *0.004 Celsius*, or less than four one-thousandths
of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a
Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would
destroy …

If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from the
peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full
account of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities
Flannery flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper…
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=3b3caa14-a637-4dfc-90fd-022d5303dea0

A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the
IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the
atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold
exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above
answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of
the warming forestalled.


--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar

[D Martin]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jbq8eg$c72$1...@dont-email.me...

Just for fun I randomly picked one of your equations and checked the
calculation. It was wrong. So pfft.

"So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57%
of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is *wait for it, wait
for it a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius* "

To being with, logarithm of 0.99997998 to the base of what? Base 2? Base 10?
Either way it will be a -ve number. And assuming base 10, and ignoring
the -ve number thing, your calculation is still incorrect (or is it someone
elses calculation?).

Which still doesnt explain why Monckton claims to be a member of the house
of Lords etc, which he aint.
Stay on topic

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Nope. It's correct. So just for fun you've screwed yourself.
So pffffffft.

> "So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57%
> of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is *wait for it, wait
> for it a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius* "
>
> To being with, logarithm of 0.99997998 to the base of what? Base 2? Base 10?
> Either way it will be a -ve number.

A negative number corresponds to a decrease in temperature. Do try to
keep up.

> And assuming base 10, and ignoring
> the -ve number thing, your calculation is still incorrect (or is it someone
> elses calculation?).

What a science-ignorant little twerp you are. You pretend to understand
climate "science" but don't even have the nous to realize that when a
derivative depends on the reciprocal value, the "natural" solution to
the differential equation will fall out in terms of... wait for it...
NATURAL logarithms. In fact this demonstrates you basic mathematical
ineptitude, whilst your feeble attempts playing with UNnatural logarithm
bases demonstrate your total ignorance of physical processes in nature
AKA science. Find the button labelled "ln" on your calculator and try again.

> Which still doesnt explain why Monckton claims to be a member of the house
> of Lords etc, which he aint.
> Stay on topic

Which is irrelevant to your embarrassing response. But it was a valuable
contribution. You have demonstrated beyond all doubt that any future
comments you make regarding the "settled science" can summarily be
dismissed with a PFFFFFFFFFTTT! Thank you for revealing your pretences.

[D Martin]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jbqeai$ao5$1...@dont-email.me...

You are full of bull manure, and still wrong- even after I pointed out your
fundamental error.
Im maths you always notate what you are talking about, in this case it
should have been 'ln', not the generic 'logarithm'.

Anyway, also with natural logs, the ln of 0.99997998 IS STILL NEGATIVE. How
could you not know that, even after I clearly pointed it out. Why is because
you are mathematically ignorant. Probably didnt even pass high school maths.

And again, what does this have to do with Monckton claiming he is a member
of the House of Lords, etc, when he isnt?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

It's not an error - it's a direct reflection of your ignorance in
scientific matters. You clearly have no background appropriate to what
you are blathering about.

> Im maths you always notate what you are talking about, in this case it
> should have been 'ln', not the generic 'logarithm'.

In your junior level maths, of course you kiddies are taught to
distinguish. In higher science, it's taken as a given that a natural
process will result in a natural logarithm. Did you ever stop to think
where the term "natural" came from in this context? Duh! There is
nothing natural about base-10 logarithms. And here, the word "logarithm"
was used in a verbal, not mathematical context. You probably wouldn't
have understood it mathematically.

It's obvious you have no clue about the origins of the calculations, or
even the meaning of the radiative forcing due to GHG concentration, on
which they are based. Do you know what this term means? How it is
determined? How the IPCC uses it? Or do you just post that "black is
white because the IPCC told me so", rather than try to figure out _how_
they arrived at that conclusion? Yeah, it's obvious.

Please show me any scientific work in which a base 10 (or base 2 LOL!)
logarithmic function is used as the basis for fundamental analysis. BTW,
you do realize that 10 has no fundamental significance in nature, do
you? Other than it happens to be how many digits we happen to have for
counting? Its "claim to fame" is as a calculation tool based on decimal
numbers, with no significance to nature whatever. What an ignorant
little tosser you are.

Anybody who knew more than shit about the subject would know
instinctively that it refers to natural logarithms. So the analysis is
not wrong regardless. What an ignorant little twerp you've shown
yourself up to be. You'd have been better off keeping your mouth shut -
now all your pretences to science have been blown away by you own
self-inflicted foot shot. ROTFL!

> Anyway, also with natural logs, the ln of 0.99997998 IS STILL NEGATIVE.

And the calculation determines the amount of temperature _change_
associated with removing that (pissant) amount of CO2 from the
atmosphere. If temperature goes down, that change is a negative number.
And the (planet-saving) _reduction_ in temperature is a positive number.
How could you have not known that when it was clearly described as
"warming forestalled".

> How
> could you not know that, even after I clearly pointed it out. Why is because
> you are mathematically ignorant. Probably didnt even pass high school maths.

ROTFLMAO!

> And again, what does this have to do with Monckton claiming he is a member
> of the House of Lords, etc, when he isnt?

It has to do with you claiming anything Monckton comes out is
fraudulent. I offered you the opportunity to show the fraud in his most
revealing of calculations and you have failed miserably. But you have
succeeded only in exposing your total ignorance in maths and science.
You are hereby declared unqualified to comment further on any aspect of
these subjects in future. But for your own befefit, I suggest you begin
your education here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

then if your puny brain hasn't exploded, try
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf

to see what these equations you clearly have no idea about actually mean.

Bloody cowboy tossers!

[D Martin]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jbrukr$ef$1...@dont-email.me...

Which proves you have no clue about mathematics.
I took a quick glance at your calculations and noticed a fundamental error
right off so I didnt bother looking any further. Which was 0.57 * 4.7 *
ln(0.99997998) = 0.00005
Obviously the solution is -ve, not +ve as shown
But instead of addressing this fundamental flaw, you have taken a long and
tourtured path to avoid it.

> Anybody who knew more than shit about the subject would know instinctively
> that it refers to natural logarithms. So the analysis is not wrong
> regardless.

Rant on about the usefulness of natural logs or logs to any other base all
you like, but natural logs are denoted as ln, not logarithm. Always. Do you
even know the value of e ?

What an ignorant little twerp you've shown
> yourself up to be. You'd have been better off keeping your mouth shut -
> now all your pretences to science have been blown away by you own
> self-inflicted foot shot. ROTFL!
>
>> Anyway, also with natural logs, the ln of 0.99997998 IS STILL NEGATIVE.
> And the calculation determines the amount of temperature _change_
> associated with removing that (pissant) amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.
> If temperature goes down, that change is a negative number. And the
> (planet-saving) _reduction_ in temperature is a positive number. How could
> you have not known that when it was clearly described as "warming
> forestalled".
>
>> How
>> could you not know that, even after I clearly pointed it out. Why is
>> because
>> you are mathematically ignorant. Probably didnt even pass high school
>> maths.
> ROTFLMAO!
>
>> And again, what does this have to do with Monckton claiming he is a
>> member
>> of the House of Lords, etc, when he isnt?
> It has to do with you claiming anything Monckton comes out is fraudulent.

I claimed Monckton was a fraud based on specific examples. Again you have
taken a long and tourtured path to avoid them. Perhaps you are well aware of
his fraudlent claims but choose to igonre them?

> I offered you the opportunity to show the fraud in his most revealing of
> calculations and you have failed miserably. But you have

Ah, so you copy and pasted Moncktons work.
Not such a good idea. He is not a mathematician you know.

> succeeded only in exposing your total ignorance in maths and science. You
> are hereby declared unqualified to comment further on any aspect of

Not so fast. A bit of an ambitious declaration for someone who doesnt know
that the ln of x < 1 is -ve. And who thinks a rise is a -ve fall. Do you
even know what the value of e is ?

[Swampfox]

A word of warning.
Don't get involved in an "I said, you said" with Oy Rool, there's a
thread hereabouts which is a few kilometres long and showing no sign of
reaching the terminus, others have come and gone in the thread but Oy
Rool and his combatant are still hard at it.
Do you have the stamina for it?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Obviously. A negative temperature change is a positive "warming
forestalled". You must have failed everything at school. You'd have
claimed a profit & loss statement was wrong because it produced a
negative profit, which was then reported as a positive loss.

> But instead of addressing this fundamental flaw, you have taken a long and
> tourtured path to avoid it.

No. I addressed it, showed you where you were wrong, and allowed you to
continue to demonstrate what a thick pillock you are.

>> Anybody who knew more than shit about the subject would know instinctively
>> that it refers to natural logarithms. So the analysis is not wrong
>> regardless.
>
> Rant on about the usefulness of natural logs or logs to any other base all
> you like, but natural logs are denoted as ln, not logarithm. Always. Do you
> even know the value of e ?

Natural logs are what emerge from natural laws, and any competent
scientist realizes that references to logarithic dependences is a
default reference to natural logs. (You wouldn't know this, but logs in
any other base are obtained simply by multiplying by a constant.
Sticking with the original solution, which *will* fall out as natural
logs, avoids the needless introduction of such extraneous constants).
Bloody hell - you should have learned that in high school... assuming
you ever got that far.) Take a look at some elementary science examples
and begin your education
http://ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/diffeqs/cool.html

Why do you think I used it in relation to your claim that Monckton was a
fraud? I'd have thought it might be obvious, when I started out by saying:

"Why don't you redo *his* calculation below, and show us the correct
non-fraudulent answers"
<jbq8eg$c72$1...@dont-email.me>

Would you have preferred me to have quoted one of Einstein's
calculations in a thread about Monckton? Me thinks youze about as sharp
as a bowling ball.

> Not such a good idea. He is not a mathematician you know.

He got those calculations spot on, much to the embarrassment of the
warmist tax activists. :-) Imagine that - all that pain & suffering for
a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius* at best.

>> succeeded only in exposing your total ignorance in maths and science. You
>> are hereby declared unqualified to comment further on any aspect of
>
> Not so fast. A bit of an ambitious declaration for someone who doesnt know
> that the ln of x< 1 is -ve.

I think you'll find the log of x is <1 in any base logarithm. :-) go get
a year 9 maths book and start learning.

> And who thinks a rise is a -ve fall.

How would you describe a calculated rise when it yields a negative
number? e.g. projected portfolio growth was 2.4%. Actual portfolio
growth was -1.8% ? You're a bit of a thickie, aren't you.

> Do you even know what the value of e is ?

Probably the Maclaurin series sum Σ(n=1 → n=∞) [xⁿ/n!]. Get back to me
when you're finished checking its value. Seems like you've never heard
of it before now though, thinking for a second that a thermodynamic
process would be described in base 10 logs. What a thick little twat.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Dec 8, 10:18 pm, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
<snip>

> Please show me any scientific work in which a base 10 (or base 2 LOL!)
> logarithmic function is used as the basis for fundamental analysis. BTW,
> you do realize that 10 has no fundamental significance in nature, do
> you? Other than it happens to be how many digits we happen to have for
> counting? Its "claim to fame" is as a calculation tool based on decimal
> numbers, with no significance to nature whatever. What an ignorant
> little tosser you are.
>

Base 10 logarithms are used in the Richter Scale and in decibel
levels.

Base 2 logarithms are used in the analysis of algorithms in computer
science, and in genetics.

[D Martin]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jbsuq6$f9n$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>> concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv.

>>>>>>> So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Ms.
>>>>>>> Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The
>>>>>>> IPCC
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>> warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the
>>>>>>> logarithm
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> 57%
>>>>>>> of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (that's the real meaning of
>>>>>>> Flannery's
>>>>>>> 1000-year point, and it doesn't do him any favours).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia's emissions would be
>>>>>>> 57%

>>>>>>> of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is - *wait for it,
>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> it - a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius*, or around one-twenty-thousandth

>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Celsius degree.* Your estimate of _a thousandth of a degree was a
>>>>>>> 20-fold

>>>>>>> exaggeration_ - not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that,

>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer b)
>>>>>>> Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world,
>>>>>>> thus:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x
>>>>>>> 4.7
>>>>>>> ln[(412-0.55)/412]< *0.004 Celsius*, or less than four
>>>>>>> one-thousandths
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a
>>>>>>> Celsius
>>>>>>> degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would

>>>>>>> destroy .

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full
>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>> of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities
>>>>>>> Flannery

>>>>>>> flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper.

Rubbish.
To begin with, Monckton is famously inconsistent with his statements.
And this thread started with a thorough debunking of Moncktons assertions.

>> Not so fast. A bit of an ambitious declaration for someone who doesnt
>> know
>> that the ln of x< 1 is -ve.
> I think you'll find the log of x is <1 in any base logarithm. :-) go get a
> year 9 maths book and start learning.

Maybe I should have expanded a little more for you...
that the ln of x where (x < 1) is negative.
But in Moncktons calculation there was a +ve result. Which Ive stated many
times now. So either you made a copy error or Moncktons calculations are
fundamentally flawed.

>> Do you even know what the value of e is ?

> Probably the Maclaurin series sum ?(n=1 ? n=?) [x?/n!]. Get back to me

> when you're finished checking its value.

Well... try 'n=0'

[Claudius Denk]

Well stated!

True to form, AGW cultists only attack people's character--anything to
draw attention away from the science.

Monckton may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Some
people can't/won't look beyond that.

[bringyagrogalong]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > D Martin wrote:
> > > "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

> > >> D Martin wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> None of this is surprising... Monckton is a fraud. He claims he's some
> > >>> kind of brillant mathematician. He's not even a mathematician, let alone
> > >>> a brilliant one. He's just a journalist.  Monckton claims he's a member
> > >>> of the house of Lords. He's not, and they wish he would stop saying that.
> > >>> Monckton claimed he won a Nobel prize. He didnt win anything.
>
> > >> Denial ain't just a river in Egypt for you is it
>
> > > Maybe you're swimming in it.
>
> > I'm not the one making claims that are just plain wrong but then global
> > warming is a cult and you have to lie for your cult.....
>
> Well stated!
>
> True to form, AGW cultists only attack people's character--anything to
> draw attention away from the science.
>
> Monckton may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Some
> people can't/won't look beyond that.

Actually people can't look beyond Monckton's claim that he has
discovered a cure for AIDS. LOL

[D Martin]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8b0338a3-00c6-46d3...@f30g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Errrr... No.
This thread was started with a specific debunking of Moncktons version of
science. This was hardly 'drawing attention away from science'
Then followed up specific, documented examples of Moncktons fraudulant
claims. Is it really 'attacking' a persons character if the statements are
fact?

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.skeptic D Martin <nor...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
... [some nitwit:] ...

>>> Do you even know what the value of e is ?
>> Probably the Maclaurin series sum ?(n=1 ? n=?) [x?/n!]. Get back to me
>> when you're finished checking its value.
> Well... try 'n=0'

D'oh! :)

"Someone" forgot Maclaurin starts with f(0) and not f'(0). Or maybe
it's another transcription error, since the emphasis from some
quarter seems to be on memory work and not ability to figure things out
from scratch.

--
[Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
-- Gillard Lies <oyroolout...@gmail.com>, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I may have replied to your waffle before, but have a screwed up news feed.

> You are full of bull manure, and still wrong- even after I pointed out your
> fundamental error.

It's your own ignorance in interpreting a negative temperature change as
a fall or drop or "saving". If you actually did have a clue about the
science involved, you would be familiar with the IPCC methodology (yes,
that's what the calculation is based on :-}}) relating the *change* in
temperature to the radiative forcing, the climate sensitivity parameter
and the temperature feedback factor. Clearly you're as ignorant of this
as you are of the meaning of a calculated negative change. I can't help
your own ignorance.

> Im maths you always notate what you are talking about, in this case it
> should have been 'ln', not the generic 'logarithm'.

In science at any advanced level (even intermediate) it is a given that
a reference to a logarithmic dependency refers to bese e log. But I
wouldn't expect a juniour wannabe like you, who has never picked up, let
alone written, a scientific paper, to know that.

>
> Anyway, also with natural logs, the ln of 0.99997998 IS STILL NEGATIVE. How
> could you not know that, even after I clearly pointed it out. Why is because
> you are mathematically ignorant. Probably didnt even pass high school maths.

See above for an explanation of your ignorance.

> And again, what does this have to do with Monckton claiming he is a member
> of the House of Lords, etc, when he isnt?

I never said it does. It relates directly to your claim that all of
Mockton's claims are fraudulent. I have givenyou the opportunity to
challenge on of his calculations, but you have only shown yourself to be
ignorant of basic scientific terminology - not realizing that a negative
change is a decrease, and that logarithmic dependencies are base in
exponential e. HINT: Did it ever occur to you *why* such a cumbersome
irrational number might be used in science? Hint 2: It's not because
it's a convenient number, like, say, 10.

BTW, I saw kimhorseshit's correction looking at Google with my busted
news feed ( I have him filtered off to the dross bucket normally). And
he's correct (that's one in a row for him!). The Maclaurin series sum
for e = Σ(n=0 → n=∞) [xⁿ/n!]. Serves me right for doing it in my head
and not checking what I typed. So now, off you go and add it up. Post
back and tell me the answer when you're done. Off you go....

[Peter Webb]

> BTW, I saw kimhorseshit's correction looking at Google with my busted news
> feed ( I have him filtered off to the dross bucket normally). And he's
> correct (that's one in a row for him!). The Maclaurin series sum for e =
> Σ(n=0 → n=∞) [xⁿ/n!]. Serves me right for doing it in my head and not
> checking what I typed. So now, off you go and add it up. Post back and
> tell me the answer when you're done. Off you go....
>

You may not have taught Dechuka calculus, and you may not have taught DM
what the scientific method entails, but this thread has clearly demonstrated
your absolute mastery of rendering maths as text. Your earlier epsilon delta
done as text was great, but your use above of UDF7 to render superscripts
and show the MacLauren series as it should be seen ... stunning.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

'Twas nothing really... <blush>. It comes, of course, from years of
experience as a professional scientist, in contrast to the ignorant
plebs I'm responding to. I could privately sent you my hotkey
incarnation I use to do it if you like - very tiny background app and
very configurable. But I won't make it widely available. Could you
imagine the abominations coming out from the mindless proles, trying to
render something as inane as lim(x→y)[x]=y? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

<Admission: Lower case "n" is one of the (very) few superscript unicode
characters which renders properly. Moral: If you need a superscript,
just make sure it's an "n" ;-)>

[Peter Webb]

> <Admission: Lower case "n" is one of the (very) few superscript unicode
> characters which renders properly. Moral: If you need a superscript, just
> make sure it's an "n" ;-)>
>

¡sǝƃɐd qǝʍ uo sʞɹɐɯ ǝʇonb ƃuılƃuɐɯ sɐʍ ǝpoɔıun ɹoɟ ǝsn ʎluo ǝɥʇ ʇɥƃnoɥʇ
sʎɐʍlɐ ı

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

___ _____ _____ _____ _____
/ _ \/ ___/ __ \_ _|_ _|
/ /_\ \ `--.| / \/ | | | | ______
| _ |`--. \ | | | | | |______|
| | | /\__/ / \__/\_| |_ _| |_
\_| |_|____/ \____/\___/ \___/


_ _ _ _
| | | | | | ( )
_ __ _____ __ | |_| |__ __ _| |_|/ ___ __ _
| '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ / / | __| '_ \ / _` | __| / __| / _` |
| | | | (_) \ V V / | |_| | | | (_| | |_ \__ \ | (_| |
|_| |_|\___/ \_/\_/ \__|_| |_|\__,_|\__| |___/ \__,_|



_ _ _ _
| | | | | | | |
__ __| |__ ___ | | ___ ___ | |_| |__ ___ _ __
\ \ /\ / /| '_ \ / _ \| |/ _ \ / _ \| __| '_ \ / _ \ '__|
\ V V / | | | | (_) | | __/ | (_) | |_| | | | __/ |
\_/\_/ |_| |_|\___/|_|\___| \___/ \__|_| |_|\___|_|


_ _ __
| | | | _ \ \
___| |_ ___ _ __ _ _ | | (_) ______ | |
/ __| __|/ _ \| '__| | | | | | |______| \ \
\__ \ |_| (_) | | | |_| | |_| _ / /
|___/\__|\___/|_| \__, | (_) ( ) | |
__/ | |/ /_/
|___/

[Peter Webb]

Works better if you wrap it in HTML to force a fixed font. Unless it was a puzzle.

 

I bet this used to look great on your old VT-100 terminal, and possibly also the TTY 43 printer terminal you used as a console.

 

 

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in message news:jbvfj3$a1i$1...@dont-email.me...

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 10/12/2011 1:03 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:18 pm, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
> <gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Please show me any scientific work in which a base 10 (or base 2 LOL!)
>> logarithmic function is used as the basis for fundamental analysis. BTW,
>> you do realize that 10 has no fundamental significance in nature, do
>> you? Other than it happens to be how many digits we happen to have for
>> counting? Its "claim to fame" is as a calculation tool based on decimal
>> numbers, with no significance to nature whatever. What an ignorant
>> little tosser you are.
>>
>
> Base 10 logarithms are used in the Richter Scale and in decibel
> levels.

Very true. And very convenient for ease of manipulation of base 10
(decimal) numbers. Same with log(10) graph paper. But nothing
fundamental to the underlying phenomena involves a 10 as some
fundamental constant emerging from their analyses.

> Base 2 logarithms are used in the analysis of algorithms in computer
> science, and in genetics.

Good point. Binary (base 2) states are "natural" in electronics. I use
log(base 2)[10] all the time as a const. Don't know about the genetics
usage, but I could easily imagine it occurring as "natural" from e.g.
cells dividing (doubling - x2) in a given time period.

--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar

.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 5, 4:18 pm, enigma <enigma_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Part #1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
>
> Part #2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA
>
> Monckton has responded to potholer's catelogue of his errors, on
> the alarmist website 'wattsupwiththat.com'
>
> Monckton's reply includes an extraordinary reversal of position on
> most of them, including an outright denial of what he said

If that is the case then one can only wonder why you don't quote him
directly so that we can all see for ourselves.

Put up or shut up.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Dec 9, 6:57 pm, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax

And they are only off by a constant mutiple from the other logs,
until you get to log log n kinds of relationships.

[D Martin]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:f3dc8a55-8da3-4417...@x10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

I didnt wonder... because all of that is there for you to see in the 2
YouTube links in the posting you replied to. If you care to look

> Put up or shut up.

It already was put up. See above.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 9, 4:11 pm, "D Martin" <nore...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Keep in mind the rest of us don't have access to your imagination.

> This was hardly 'drawing attention away from science'

Actually, it is.

> Then followed up specific, documented examples of Moncktons fraudulant
> claims. Is it really 'attacking' a persons character if the statements are
> fact?

It can be. And in this instance it certainly is. AGW is a dishonest
premise on all levels.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 10, 9:49 pm, "D Martin" <nore...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Yoiu AGW whackos are vague minded nitwits.

[D Martin]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:a772528d-95ec-48a6...@g1g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

You didnt watch the YouTube videos, did you?
No imagination required. The debunking in the videos was practically spoon
fed.

> This was hardly 'drawing attention away from science'

> Actually, it is.

Errr... the videos focussed exclusively on the science...

> Then followed up specific, documented examples of Moncktons fraudulant
> claims. Is it really 'attacking' a persons character if the statements are
> fact?

> It can be. And in this instance it certainly is. AGW is a dishonest
> premise on all levels.

The fraudulant claims referred to here were being a member of the house of
lords, being awarded a Nobel prize... etc.

[bringyagrogalong]

Pah!

That's nothing...kids stuff.

Now watch a master at work:
http://tinyurl.com/658j58m

Yes, drop to your knees in awe you luddite.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 12, 2:54 am, "D Martin" <nore...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

The videos are rather obvious propaganda. This author is attempting
to discredit Monckton based on out of context quotes that have been
carefully cherry picked.

> > This was hardly 'drawing attention away from science'
> > Actually, it is.
>
> Errr... the videos focussed exclusively on the science...

The videos misrepresented Monckton blatantly.

> > Then followed up specific, documented examples of Moncktons fraudulant
> > claims. Is it really 'attacking' a persons character if the statements are
> > fact?
> > It can be.  And in this instance it certainly is.  AGW is a dishonest
> > premise on all levels.
>
> The fraudulant claims referred to here were being a member of the house of
> lords, being awarded a Nobel prize... etc.

Apparently Monckton has a Visa that indicate he is a member of the
house of lords. Are you suggesting that the british government is
complicit in the purported fraud? If not then what is your paranoid
theory explaining how he obtained this Visa?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

The leftard loons thrive on misrepresentation, cherry picking,
contextual bastardization and just plain ol' blatant lies. It's all they
have after logic, rationale and truth continue to fail their twisted
causes and claims.

[Gordon Levi]

>The videos are rather obvious propaganda.? This author is attempting

[Gordon Levi]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Apparently Monckton has a Visa that indicate he is a member of the
>house of lords. Are you suggesting that the british government is
>complicit in the purported fraud? If not then what is your paranoid
>theory explaining how he obtained this Visa?

It's rubbish. Monkton has a British passport. Visas are issued by a
foreign government to allow entry into a foreign country. Monkton does
not need, and cannot have, a visa issued by the British government.

[George152]

And how are things in Pendantia these days ?

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 27, 5:35 am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

I stand corrected. Allow me to restate my position now that I have a
better understanding of the difference between a Visa and a passport:

Apparently Monckton has a passport that indicate he is a member of the

house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid

theory explaining how he obtained this passport?

Now that you've schooled me on aspects of international travel I'm
going to return the favor and school you on aspects of internet based
discussion groups. When you respond to a post and cut (snip) words
from the post to which you are responding and you don't put an
indication in your post, such as <snip> that you have done so it's
considered bad form. It's referred to as a blind snip. It's
indicative of evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. I suggest
going to Google and searching under the phrase "blind snip."

<blind snip restored below>

The videos are rather obvious propaganda. This author is attempting
to discredit Monckton based on out of context quotes that have been

carefully cherry picked. <and> The videos misrepresent Monckton
blatantly.

Do you dispute these assertion?

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:18:51 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:35 am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >Apparently Monckton has a Visa that indicate he is a member of the
>> >house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
>> >complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
>> >theory explaining how he obtained this Visa?
>>
>> It's rubbish. Monkton has a British passport. Visas are issued by a
>> foreign government to allow entry into a foreign country. Monkton does
>> not need, and cannot have, a visa issued by the British government.
>
> I stand corrected. Allow me to restate my position now that I have a
> better understanding of the difference between a Visa and a passport:
>
> Apparently Monckton has a passport that indicate he is a member of the
> house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
> complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
> theory explaining how he obtained this passport?

I very much doubt that Monckton has a passport that says he is a member
of the House of Lord. It may say he is a Viscount and it may
describe him as Lord Monckton. That is now very different from being a
member of the House of Lords. He has tried to be elected by his peers and
failed every time. He is not a member of the House of Lords.

> Now that you've schooled me on aspects of international travel I'm
> going to return the favor and school you on aspects of internet based
> discussion groups. When you respond to a post and cut (snip) words
> from the post to which you are responding and you don't put an
> indication in your post, such as <snip> that you have done so it's
> considered bad form. It's referred to as a blind snip. It's
> indicative of evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. I suggest
> going to Google and searching under the phrase "blind snip."
>
><blind snip restored below>
>
> The videos are rather obvious propaganda. This author is attempting
> to discredit Monckton based on out of context quotes that have been
> carefully cherry picked. <and> The videos misrepresent Monckton
> blatantly.
>
> Do you dispute these assertion?

--

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 27, 4:32 pm, Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:18:51 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 5:35 am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >Apparently Monckton has a Visa that indicate he is a member of the
> >> >house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
> >> >complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
> >> >theory explaining how he obtained this Visa?
>
> >> It's rubbish. Monkton has a British passport. Visas are issued by a
> >> foreign government to allow entry into a foreign country. Monkton does
> >> not need, and cannot have, a visa issued by the British government.
>
> > I stand corrected.  Allow me to restate my position now that I have a
> > better understanding of the difference between a Visa and a passport:
>
> > Apparently Monckton has a passport that indicate he is a member of the
> > house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
> > complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
> > theory explaining how he obtained this passport?
>
> I very much doubt that Monckton has a passport that says he is a member
> of the House of Lord. It may say he is a Viscount and it may
> describe him as Lord Monckton. That is now very different from being a
> member of the House of Lords. He has tried to be elected by his peers and
> failed every time. He is not a member of the House of Lords.

Well . . . uh, let's kinda try to stick to the point here.

Here's the thing, Dog. Monckton has now and in the
past had access to relatively high levels of trust within
the British Government in regard to scientific matters.
True or false? If you think the correct answer to that
question is false then I can only assume you are
ignorant or highly biased. If, hopefully, you are sensible
enough to respond affirmatively then the next question
that comes to my mind is, why are you pursuing such a
weakass argument?

Do you have any science-based disputes with Monckton's science-based
statements? No?

[bringyagrogalong]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I can't believe the front of some people like Claudius Denk.

Firstly he makes a ludicrous claim that Monckton has a visa which
describes him as a member of the House of Lords and when that
absurdity was shown for the palpable nonsense that it was he changed
his mind to it being Monckton's passport which shows him as a member

of the House of Lords.

When that equally absurd proposition was also shredded he simply
ignored his own proven stupidity and puts that fool Monckton and
science in the same sentence.

Hello!! Monckton has no scientific qualifications.

His qualifications consists of a diploma in journalism and an arts
degree.

Yet that unqualified barefaced liar (http://tinyurl.com/3wsk4nb) is
the face of the anti-AGW flat-earth society. ROTFL

FFS He's a lunatic who reckons he's found a cure for AIDS.

No more need be said really.

-------

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.

"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".

- Stephen Hawking

[Claudius Denk]

Heavens to betsy.

> Firstly he makes a ludicrous claim that Monckton has a visa which
> describes him as a member of the House of Lords and when that
> absurdity was shown for the palpable nonsense that it was he changed
> his mind to it being Monckton's passport which shows him as a member
> of the House of Lords.
>
> When that equally absurd proposition was also shredded he simply
> ignored his own proven stupidity and puts that fool Monckton and
> science in the same sentence.
>
> Hello!!  Monckton has no scientific qualifications.
>
> His qualifications consists of a diploma in journalism and an arts
> degree.
>
> Yet that unqualified barefaced liar (http://tinyurl.com/3wsk4nb) is
> the face of the anti-AGW flat-earth society. ROTFL

So what's your theory on why no alarmist will debate him?

> FFS He's a lunatic who reckons he's found a cure for AIDS.
>
> No more need be said really.

If you say so.

>
> -------
>
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> global warming further.
>
> "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> - Stephen Hawking

Not even Stephen Hawking will debate Monckton.

[bringyagrogalong]

Why? There's no surprise there.

> > Firstly he makes a ludicrous claim that Monckton has a visa which
> > describes him as a member of the House of Lords and when that
> > absurdity was shown for the palpable nonsense that it was he changed
> > his mind to it being Monckton's passport which shows him as a member
> > of the House of Lords.

No denial duly noted.

> > When that equally absurd proposition was also shredded he simply
> > ignored his own proven stupidity and puts that fool Monckton and
> > science in the same sentence.

No denial duly noted.

> > Hello!!  Monckton has no scientific qualifications.

No denial duly noted.

> > His qualifications consists of a diploma in journalism and an arts
> > degree.

No denial duly noted.

> > Yet that unqualified barefaced liar (http://tinyurl.com/3wsk4nb) is
> > the face of the anti-AGW flat-earth society. ROTFL
>
> So what's your theory on why no alarmist will debate him?

If by an alarmist you mean someone who agrees with all the world's
science academies and scientific societies of 
national or
international standing who state 
that human activity is contributing
to global warming, then the answer is self -evident....Why would they
debate a discredited ratbag like Monckton?

> > FFS He's a lunatic who reckons he's found a cure for AIDS.

Your avoidance of Monckton's insanity duly noted.

> > No more need be said really.
>
> If you say so.

At least you have the intelligence, limited though it is, to agree
with that.

> > "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> > has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> > caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> > and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> > the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> > main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> > "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> > quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> > Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> > global warming further.
>
> > "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> > - Stephen Hawking
>
> Not even Stephen Hawking will debate Monckton.

LOL And why would he.

Hawking is a scientist. Monckton is not.

--------

Mr Swan took aim at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott who headed off to
Britain yesterday evening ahead of today’s carbon tax vote.

"After all the tough guy talk, what a spineless retreat," he said.

[Claudius Denk]

Duck, dodge, weave.

[Gordon Levi]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Dec 27, 5:35 am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >Apparently Monckton has a Visa that indicate he is a member of the
>> >house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
>> >complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
>> >theory explaining how he obtained this Visa?
>>
>> It's rubbish. Monkton has a British passport. Visas are issued by a
>> foreign government to allow entry into a foreign country. Monkton does
>> not need, and cannot have, a visa issued by the British government.
>
>I stand corrected. Allow me to restate my position now that I have a
>better understanding of the difference between a Visa and a passport:
>
>Apparently Monckton has a passport that indicate he is a member of the
>house of lords.  Are you suggesting that the british government is
>complicit in the purported fraud?  If not then what is your paranoid
>theory explaining how he obtained this passport?

I'm glad you changed "visa" to "passport". Now we both have some hope
of verifying your statement. My web search indicated that his passport
showed that he is an hereditary peer but does _not_ show that he is a
member of the House of Lords <http://tinyurl.com/3rs58e4>. Perhaps you
can find a quote from his passport that shows that his claim to be a
member of the House of Lords is valid.

>
>Now that you've schooled me on aspects of international travel I'm
>going to return the favor and school you on aspects of internet based
>discussion groups. When you respond to a post and cut (snip) words
>from the post to which you are responding and you don't put an
>indication in your post, such as <snip> that you have done so it's
>considered bad form. It's referred to as a blind snip. It's
>indicative of evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. I suggest
>going to Google and searching under the phrase "blind snip."

I stand corrected. I promise to include "snip" in my posts.
>
><blind snip restored below>

<snip> :)

[m II]

Logarithms have nought to do with the number system base.

Your statements are confused.

------------
"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
news:ce664c5b-4906-4c04...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

[Claudius Denk]

If Einstein could be shown to have been dishonest in some aspect of
his personal or public existence would that in any way bring us to
doubt the validity of E=MC2?

[Tim Norfolk]

> until you get to log log n kinds of relationships.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your statement above doesn't make any sense. What is 'the number
system'?

[Martin]

Oh puhleaze, who is going on and on about the personal qualifications
of *Lord* Monckton?

[Nomad]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message

Hello!! Monckton has no scientific qualifications.

His qualifications consists of a diploma in journalism and an arts
degree.

___________________________
Yes more does need to be said:

1) what are YOUR qualifications to speak to ANY scientific issue?

2) What were ALGORE's qualifications to speak to ANY environmental or any
other issue for that matters?

3) More people have degrees in environmental science, weather, oceanography
than any of those pushing AGW. Most of those degreed individuals have been
ousted from the academic community by the financial opportunists that AGW
purveyors are. Most of the degreed individuals have been EXCLUDED for
Poltical reasons Alone! from any work in the scientific community because
they demonstrate Measured data that is relevent to climate that outright
disputes the "man-caused" attribution that AGW cultists are pushing.

4) AGW is a political cult, nothing more. It tolerates NO dissent, no
conflicting data - basicly negates the scientific method for the sake of
financial gain and profit. Once that happens, then it is bar the door Sally
and all the hordes of snake oil salesman flock to the trough to feed on the
grant money. Hypocrites!


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Indeed. The hubris of those, who would deny the right of skeptical
scientists to challenge AGW, the flakiest scientific "theory" to come
out of the 20th century, appears to have no bounds.

[Gordon Levi]

I assume you are trying to draw a parallel between Monkton and a
dishonest scientist. There is none. First, Monkton does not claim to
be a scientist and has made no original contribution to the AGW
debate. He has merely promoted the views of some climate skeptic
scientists.

Second, Monkton's self deception is relevant to the debate. Monkton
cannot bring himself to believe that society has changed to the point
that his hereditary peerage no longer entitles him to a seat in the
House of Lords. This is a direct parallel with the universal climate
conservative view that, if AGW is real, the action required to deal
with it would undermine their privileges. Far better to deceive
oneself into believing it is not happening. Many conservatives,
including Monkton, are so frightened of the change that they believe
that AGW theory is a political movement _intended_ to redistribute
wealth.

[Tim Norfolk]

> wealth.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
scientist and mathematician.

[GW HO AX@agwhoax A GW HO AX]

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:2pbqf7tujnkl5uc0l...@4ax.com...

Frightened?
Frightened??

We skeptics merely want to see some evidence, ANY EVIDENCE, supporting your
AGW claptrap!

Meantime, the null hypothesis stands as per the scientific method!

You're aware of the sceintific method aren't you?



Warmest Regards

B0nnz0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:

"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species

[GW HO AX@agwhoax A GW HO AX]

"Tim Norfolk" <tims...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5b5b5b39-3a24-4fef...@p42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

------------------------------------


I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and mathematics than
many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

You must mean like in the words of OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not
be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "

[Swampfox]

On 30/12/2011 2:57 PM, A GW HO AX wrote:

<snip>

> If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
> scientist and mathematician.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and mathematics than
> many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!

And why would you strongly suspect that Bonzo, seeing as he's totally
unqualified in both disciplines?
Would you like your local butcher performing neuro surgery on a member
of your family, so long as he was a climate skeptic?

>
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> B0nnz0


<snip>

[Swampfox]

On 30/12/2011 3:02 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
<snip>

> You must mean like in the words of OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:
>
> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
> wealth by climate policy.

Which may well apply to the Viscount Lord Bean, oops, Monckton (Sorry my
lud)
He seems to making some decent coin out of the whole brouhaha, and all
he's doing is preaching to the converted.
He missed his calling, he could have been a televangelist, in the Jim
Bakker mould.

[Addinall]

Or someone who can just hammer a nail into a bit of wood. Would you
have him design
your network because he firmly believes that the 'Earth' has warmed
0.8C over the last
century and a half due to CO2 (because a Russian tree root told him
so).

Idiot.

Mark Addinall.


>
>
>
> > Warmest Regards
>
> > B0nnz0
>
> <snip>

[Swampfox]

On 30/12/2011 4:47 PM, Addinall wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:21 pm, Swampfox<noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>> On 30/12/2011 2:57 PM, A GW HO AX wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
>>> scientist and mathematician.
>>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>> I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and mathematics than
>>> many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!
>>
>> And why would you strongly suspect that Bonzo, seeing as he's totally
>> unqualified in both disciplines?
>> Would you like your local butcher performing neuro surgery on a member
>> of your family, so long as he was a climate skeptic?
>
> Or someone who can just hammer a nail into a bit of wood.

I wouldn't, you and Bonzo might.
Why are you so touchy about an obvious fraud like Monckton by the way?

>Would you
> have him design
> your network because he firmly believes that the 'Earth' has warmed
> 0.8C over the last
> century and a half due to CO2 (because a Russian tree root told him
> so).

Would you listen to a network tech blabber on as if he understands the
intricacies of climate science?
Me neither.

>
> Idiot.
>
> Mark Addinall.

Fuckwit.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 30/12/2011 4:30 PM, Swampfox wrote:
> On 30/12/2011 3:02 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> You must mean like in the words of OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:
>>
>> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
>> wealth by climate policy.
>
> Which may well apply to the Viscount Lord Bean, oops, Monckton (Sorry my
> lud)

Hardly. How is he in any position at all to redistribute global wealth.
You'd need a vehicle like the UN to do that. Oh! That's right - it's
already doing that according to OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's

wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not

be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "

> He seems to making some decent coin out of the whole brouhaha, and all
> he's doing is preaching to the converted.

Nothing compared to the charlatan Al Gores and Tim Flannerys. And
microscopic by comparison with the UN wealth redistribution scheme
admitted to above.

> He missed his calling, he could have been a televangelist, in the Jim
> Bakker mould.

Don't follow them. But I have found his calculations to be flawless, and
relying purely on objective data rather than religious belief. Have you
found any fault with them?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 30/12/2011 5:29 PM, Swampfox wrote:
> On 30/12/2011 4:47 PM, Addinall wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 3:21 pm, Swampfox<noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/12/2011 2:57 PM, A GW HO AX wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
>>>> scientist and mathematician.
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and
>>>> mathematics than
>>>> many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!
>>>
>>> And why would you strongly suspect that Bonzo, seeing as he's totally
>>> unqualified in both disciplines?
>>> Would you like your local butcher performing neuro surgery on a member
>>> of your family, so long as he was a climate skeptic?
>>
>> Or someone who can just hammer a nail into a bit of wood.
>
> I wouldn't, you and Bonzo might.
> Why are you so touchy about an obvious fraud like Monckton by the way?

Perhaps you could point out any fraudulence in his calculations below.
If you can, it will be a first on aus.politics:

Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in
Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if
a) Australia alone and
b) the whole world
cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s
emissions?

Answer a)
Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A
stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2
concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts
per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have
added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2
concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in
Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in
2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…
So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and
Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The
IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the
logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it
expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would
happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (that’s the real
meaning of Flannery’s 1000-year point, and it doesn’t do him any favours).

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57%
of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – *wait for it, wait
for it – a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius*, or around one-twenty-thousandth
of a Celsius degree.* Your estimate of _a thousandth of a degree was a
20-fold exaggeration_ – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you
that, of course.

Answer b)
Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7
ln[(412-0.55)/412] < *0.004 Celsius*, or less than four one-thousandths
of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a
Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would
destroy …

If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from the
peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full
account of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities
Flannery flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=3b3caa14-a637-4dfc-90fd-022d5303dea0

A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the
IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the
atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold
exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above
answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of
the warming forestalled.

>
>> Would you
>> have him design
>> your network because he firmly believes that the 'Earth' has warmed
>> 0.8C over the last
>> century and a half due to CO2 (because a Russian tree root told him
>> so).
>
> Would you listen to a network tech blabber on as if he understands the
> intricacies of climate science?

I would listen to anybody whose calculations were both correct and
revealing. Pedantries of qualifications and titles don't come into it.
The beauty of science - only the truth matters.

> Me neither.
>
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> Mark Addinall.
>
> Fuckwit.

[Gordon Levi]

Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:

>On 30/12/2011 2:32 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> Claudius Denk<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>

<big snip>

>> Monkton's self deception is relevant to the debate. Monkton
>> cannot bring himself to believe that society has changed to the point
>> that his hereditary peerage no longer entitles him to a seat in the
>> House of Lords. This is a direct parallel with the universal climate
>> conservative view that, if AGW is real, the action required to deal
>> with it would undermine their privileges. Far better to deceive
>> oneself into believing it is not happening. Many conservatives,
>> including Monkton, are so frightened of the change that they believe
>> that AGW theory is a political movement _intended_ to redistribute
>> wealth.
>
>You must mean like in the words of OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:
>
>"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
>wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not
>be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
>that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
>almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
>such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "

Thanks "Oy". "Oy" has come in, right on cue, to illustrate the extreme
end of climate conservatism. This selective extract from Professor
Edenhofer is often used in an attempt to show that scientists, led by
the IPCC, are only motivated by the desire to redistribute wealth.
They never link to either the original interview or an English
translation
<http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/ottmar-repeats-himself.html>.
If they did it would be clear to the reader that Edenhofer has given
an honest appraisal of the _consequences_ of a serious attempt to
limit GHGs. The extremists like "Oy" and Monkton believe that it is
not a consequence but a motive.

[Swampfox]

Either that or they know that it's a consequence but choose to
misrepresent it as a motive.
I think you're way too generous.

[Swampfox]

On 30/12/2011 9:00 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 30/12/2011 5:29 PM, Swampfox wrote:
>> On 30/12/2011 4:47 PM, Addinall wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 3:21 pm, Swampfox<noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/12/2011 2:57 PM, A GW HO AX wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
>>>>> scientist and mathematician.
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>> I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and
>>>>> mathematics than
>>>>> many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!
>>>>
>>>> And why would you strongly suspect that Bonzo, seeing as he's totally
>>>> unqualified in both disciplines?
>>>> Would you like your local butcher performing neuro surgery on a member
>>>> of your family, so long as he was a climate skeptic?
>>>
>>> Or someone who can just hammer a nail into a bit of wood.
>>
>> I wouldn't, you and Bonzo might.
>> Why are you so touchy about an obvious fraud like Monckton by the way?
>
> Perhaps you could point out any fraudulence in his calculations below.
> If you can, it will be a first on aus.politics:

I'm not a mathematician, and Monckton isn't a member of the house of lords.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 30/12/2011 10:20 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/12/2011 2:32 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Claudius Denk<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
> <big snip>
>>> Monkton's self deception is relevant to the debate. Monkton
>>> cannot bring himself to believe that society has changed to the point
>>> that his hereditary peerage no longer entitles him to a seat in the
>>> House of Lords. This is a direct parallel with the universal climate
>>> conservative view that, if AGW is real, the action required to deal
>>> with it would undermine their privileges. Far better to deceive
>>> oneself into believing it is not happening. Many conservatives,
>>> including Monkton, are so frightened of the change that they believe
>>> that AGW theory is a political movement _intended_ to redistribute
>>> wealth.
>>
>> You must mean like in the words of OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:
>>
>> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
>> wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not
>> be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
>> that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
>> almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
>> such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "
>
> Thanks "Oy". "Oy" has come in, right on cue, to illustrate the extreme
> end of climate conservatism.

Always happy to counterbalance the extreme end of fanatical AGW voodoo
worship.

> This selective extract from Professor
> Edenhofer is often used in an attempt to show that scientists, led by
> the IPCC, are only motivated by the desire to redistribute wealth.

Is it? I'd only ever read into it exactly what it says. He speaks only
for the IPCC, not for any scientists it appears. Perhaps though, it is a
factor contributing to the fact that so many scientists have wanted
their names removed from IPCC reports. Certainly they have been
horrified at how the IPCC has twisted their work to prop up their own
AGW agenda, but perhaps now they also object to the purely political and
decidedly unscientific motives of the IPCC, as embarrassingly revealed
by EDENHOFER.

> They never link to either the original interview or an English
> translation
> <http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/ottmar-repeats-himself.html>.
> If they did it would be clear to the reader that Edenhofer has given
> an honest appraisal of the _consequences_ of a serious attempt to
> limit GHGs. The extremists like "Oy" and Monkton believe that it is
> not a consequence but a motive.

So are you saying he is lying in the direct quotation I provided? It's
pretty self-contained BTW.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Or it _is_ the motive. Makes more sense than chasing some wild voodoo
CO2 theory which has been letting them down for 20 years.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 30/12/2011 10:41 PM, Swampfox wrote:
> On 30/12/2011 9:00 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 30/12/2011 5:29 PM, Swampfox wrote:
>>> On 30/12/2011 4:47 PM, Addinall wrote:
>>>> On Dec 30, 3:21 pm, Swampfox<noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/12/2011 2:57 PM, A GW HO AX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I recall, Monckton has, on several occasions, called himself a
>>>>>> scientist and mathematician.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>> I strongly suspect that he knows far more about science and
>>>>>> mathematics than
>>>>>> many, if not most, of the so-called "scientists" around!
>>>>>
>>>>> And why would you strongly suspect that Bonzo, seeing as he's totally
>>>>> unqualified in both disciplines?
>>>>> Would you like your local butcher performing neuro surgery on a member
>>>>> of your family, so long as he was a climate skeptic?
>>>>
>>>> Or someone who can just hammer a nail into a bit of wood.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't, you and Bonzo might.
>>> Why are you so touchy about an obvious fraud like Monckton by the way?
>>
>> Perhaps you could point out any fraudulence in his calculations below.
>> If you can, it will be a first on aus.politics:
>
> I'm not a mathematician, and Monckton isn't a member of the house of lords.

So his scientific contribution is _not_ fraudulent then, as many would
like to suggest through some peerage dispute. Glad we're there.

[bringyagrogalong]

"Nomad" <re...@nadaaqua.org> wrote:
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>
> Hello!!  Monckton has no scientific qualifications.
>
> His qualifications consists of a diploma in journalism and an arts
> degree.
>
> ___________________________
>

> 1) what are YOUR qualifications to speak to ANY scientific issue?

My luminous intelligence.

> 2) What were ALGORE's qualifications to speak to ANY environmental or any
> other issue for that matters?

His luminous intelligence.

And of course, unlike Monckton, he has a real Nobel Prize.

> 3) More people have degrees in environmental science, weather, oceanography
> than any of those pushing AGW. Most of those degreed individuals have been
> ousted from the academic community by the financial opportunists that AGW
> purveyors are. Most of the degreed individuals have been EXCLUDED for
> Poltical reasons Alone! from any work in the scientific community because
> they demonstrate Measured data that is relevent to climate that outright
> disputes the "man-caused" attribution that AGW cultists are pushing.
>
> 4) AGW is a political cult, nothing more. It tolerates NO dissent, no
> conflicting data - basicly negates the scientific method for the sake of
> financial gain and profit. Once that happens, then it is bar the door Sally
> and all the hordes of snake oil salesman flock to the trough to feed on the
> grant money.  Hypocrites!

Let me simply say in response to that claptrap:

"Among all the world's science academies and scientific societies of
national or international standing *not one* has a dissenting voice
that human activity is contributing to global warming".

Not one, Jethro.

That's why you flat-earthers are viewed with such contempt and
derision.

--------

[m II]

After that question perhaps I'll just rest that one with this audience.
It ain't goin' nowhere wit' y'all.

---------

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
news:ce664c5b-4906-4c04...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

Your statement above doesn't make any sense. What is 'the number
system'?

-----------

[Tim Norfolk]

On Dec 30, 4:50 am, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
<gillard_l...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
<snip>

> Don't follow them. But I have found his calculations to be flawless, and
> relying purely on objective data rather than religious belief. Have you
> found any fault with them?
>

<snip>

Then check out a speech of Monckton's where he makes a big deal about
dividing a quantity by 3, based on a paper he read. The problem is
that he looked at the wrong quantity.

[Swampfox]

Where are we, exactly, that Monckton is a fraud?
He's such an obvious phoney that it beggars belief that an intelligent
person can give him the time of day, much less subscribe to anything he
says.
Just one of his faudulent utterings should suffice:
"The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only
perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central
quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will
you get. It's a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have
actually published work in the *reviewed* literature, and there's not
many people who have done that. Very few people people have actually
done work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they
have preferred at the UN's climate panel to rely on computer models
which are in effect a form of guesswork."

Monckton’s only contribution to this field was an article *(not a
peer-reviewed paper)* in a newsletter *(not a peer-reviewed journal)* of
the American Physical Society in 2008, which got the science so badly
wrong that Arthur Smith (a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics
and former vice president of the National Space Society) was able to
document 125 errors.

He's a liar and a charlatan, if he's the best you can muster for your
argument you're in deep shit.

<snip>

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Where is it?

[Gordon Levi]

Thanks, but I disagree. I think that Monkton _really_ believes that he
is a member of the House of Lords because he cannot accept the social
change that excluded him. Similarly, "Oy" can only justify his
opposition to the stance of all the scientists that he would otherwise
respect by assuming that they have a common political cause. I don't
believe that "Oy" is deliberately deceiving his audience.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Dec 30, 9:32 pm, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax

It's discussed in one of potholer54's recent videos, and I'm too tired
to find it.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I believe this furphy has been dealt with and dismissed before. You have
even provided the witch hunt dismissal yourself. Journal letters *are
reviewed* prior to publication (that's why they have editors BTW), which
was what Monckton stated. Anybody with a brain would know that *peer*
review (not his wrods BTW) would be irrelevant because:
a) It was not a scientific paper he submitted for journal publication
b) He isn't a scientist qualified/ recognized in the field (mucjh like
Gore or Flannery for instance) and scientific "peer" is therefore of no
relevance.

Have you looked at Smith's witch hunt of errors? Most unimpressive, just
pedantics and the usual IPCC apologetics - and from a critic who is not
even a qualified climate "scientist". So for you to call Monckton a liar
and a charlatan makes you a liar and a charlatan. Best keep your mouth
shut on that one.

[Swampfox]

OK.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I don't believe I am a member of the House of Lords, but I can't take
seriously any "scientist" who will stand by a hypothesis which has
clearly failed. Politics, financial motivation or anything else aside.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Best you go off for your afternoon nap then.

[Swampfox]

On 31/12/2011 1:57 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

Well, we disagree.
I think that Monckton is an opportunist, a liar and a fraud and I've
heard nothing from him to change my opinion.
As for Oy and others of his ilk both here and elsewhere it seems to me
that climate skepticism goes hand in glove with a certain political mindset.
The skeptics accuse the majority of climate scientists of being part of
a gigantic political conspiracy, a gravy train so attractive that it
corrupts some of the best minds on the planet, but the skeptics
themselves are almost universally conservatives who adhere to the great
raft of ideologies of the right, climate skepticism for them simply goes
with the territory.
That is, their skepticism is motivated to a large extent by political
ideology rather than rational thought, and when ideology becomes
involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the first casualties.
Is their deception intentional?
I believe in individual responsibility and free will, so I believe that
it is.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Now for something completely different. As a chippie, would you know of
a good place to buy hardwood glazing bead for external window frames?
I'll probably need a small mountain of the stuff, and pricing it at
Bunnings - whew! I was thinking of setting up my router table to make
it, since I do have quite a bit in hardwood lengths. It's all simple
section like the A1, A4, A5, A7, B1 shown here:
http://www.bekol.com/uk/lijstwerk/base/images/extra/glaslatten1.jpg
Maybe a builder's supplier in SE suburbs? Any suggestions?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Not the majority. But you are *told* that the majority believe in AGW,
so *you* believe it.

> but the skeptics
> themselves are almost universally conservatives who adhere to the great
> raft of ideologies of the right, climate skepticism for them simply goes
> with the territory.

This does not fit very well with the fact that I strongly supported the
replacement of Turnbull (higher in the polls as preferred PM) with
Abbott (less popular in the polls) solely on the grounds that he is an
AGW voodoo believer.

> That is, their skepticism is motivated to a large extent by political
> ideology rather than rational thought, and when ideology becomes
> involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the first casualties.
> Is their deception intentional?

You have, I believe, summed up the case "in favour of" AGW very nicely.
It's not about truth at all, but is politically motivated as part of a
wealth redistribution ideology, as confessed by OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN

IPCC OFFICIAL:
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not
be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "

I believe you're right on the mark when you say, "when ideology becomes

involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the first

casualties." I like to believe in real science revealing the truth,
above and beyond anything else.

> I believe in individual responsibility and free will, so I believe that
> it is.

[Swampfox]

Lewis in Jasper Road Ormond will have want you want, but KD glazing bead
is expensive no matter where you buy it because it's a small section
which has to be milled from clear (read expensive) stock.
Router table isn't an option, way too slow and time consuming and unless
you're well skilled and have top quality bits you'll end up with
chatters all the way through it.
What you need should all be the same profile assuming that your windows
are uniform, you could run the bevel with a planer then rip off what you
need, bevel the stock and go again, that way you could get 4 lengths
from a piece of 90 x 19, or 7 from 140 x 19, and so on, if you need 15mm
any decent timber yard will run some 19mm through a thicknesser for you
for a few dollars a metre.
Another option, which is the way I'd go, would be to source it from a
window manufacturer, either in finger jointed treated pine or western
red cedar, either of which will outlive KD by years in external
situations. (Lewis may have WRC)
Whichever way you go be sure to back prime it and prime all the cut ends
before you fix it, with galvanised brads of course, don't nail too close
to the ends in case you need to remove it to reglaze a window, at least
75mm in, the mitres will hold the corner tight.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Excellent, thanks. Great advice. I actually lived near Lewis's as a kid
and remember there were two brothers (I think) there, who were both
quite short. Rumour had it that they would not hire anybody over 5' 6",
because they wanted the short blokes who got picked on to be given a
"better go". Local (sub)urban legend maybe???

I'm still amenable to the router though. I'd be going "complete window
at a time" on this job, so wouldn't be trying to pump out miles of the
stuff at once i.e. could run each length slowly & carefully. I might
have to try a length to satisfy myself. I was thinking of starting with
a more manageable "double thickness, back-to-back" piece, machining
bevels on opposite faces, then splitting down the middle on circ saw
table to produce a pair at a time.

I fully concur with your priming and gal brads recommendation. I can see
that's what's caused much of the original material to deteriorate. Also
noticable is lack of priming under the old linseed putty.

Do you think linseed putty is still the best option? Or is there a
better new-fangled product? I know there is some sort of glazing
compound available in a cartridge gun tube. Also, I saw some "wood
hardener", which I think is intended for use where there is a need for
filling with Builder's Bog... and there are few candidate spots for this
too. All advice appreciated.

[Swampfox]

The majority do, it's beyond question.
If you refute that then name one internationally recognised scientific
organisation which dissents.

>
>> but the skeptics
>> themselves are almost universally conservatives who adhere to the great
>> raft of ideologies of the right, climate skepticism for them simply goes
>> with the territory.
> This does not fit very well with the fact that I strongly supported the
> replacement of Turnbull (higher in the polls as preferred PM) with
> Abbott (less popular in the polls) solely on the grounds that he is an
> AGW voodoo believer.

It fits perfectly.
Turnbull is a liberal, Abbott is of the right and his core beliefs
coincide with yours.

>
>> That is, their skepticism is motivated to a large extent by political
>> ideology rather than rational thought, and when ideology becomes
>> involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the first
>> casualties.
>> Is their deception intentional?
> You have, I believe, summed up the case "in favour of" AGW very nicely.
> It's not about truth at all, but is politically motivated as part of a
> wealth redistribution ideology, as confessed by OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN
> IPCC OFFICIAL:
> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's
> wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not
> be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion
> that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
> almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems
> such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "
>
> I believe you're right on the mark when you say, "when ideology becomes
> involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the first
> casualties." I like to believe in real science revealing the truth,
> above and beyond anything else.

I guess it depends on which side of the fence you sit.
Those on your side will accuse the mainstream of bias and a politcal
agenda, as they will you.
Time will be the judge of the science, I'm no more than an interested
bystander.

[Swampfox]

> better new-fangled product? I know there is some sort of glazing preservative

> compound available in a cartridge gun tube. Also, I saw some "wood
> hardener", which I think is intended for use where there is a need for
> filling with Builder's Bog... and there are few candidate spots for this
> too. All advice appreciated.
>

Any rotted sections should be dug out with a sharp 1/4" chisel or small
tool until you're back to fresh timber, then treated with a timber
preservative prior to filling.
Blue 7 was the weapon of choice but it's been declared carcinogenic,
these days there's a preservative gel, not sure but could be called "no
rot", apply it neat with a brush.
Don't use builders bog on horizontal window sections, it dries hard too
and allows water to penetrate on the edges of the filled section, Haymes
Uni-fill is good but apply it directly after you've applied the
preservative, not on dry tiber.
What do you want the putty for?
You're going the wrong way with the router table IMO, but you should
have some fun trying. ;-)

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Those who choose to take a "public" position on the issue _say_ they do.
There are no funding opportunities in non-AGW. No indication that this
is a majority though. If you have the numerical data to support the
"majority" claim, please provide.

> If you refute that then name one internationally recognised
> scientific organisation which dissents.
>
>>
>>> but the skeptics themselves are almost universally conservatives
>>> who adhere to the great raft of ideologies of the right, climate
>>> skepticism for them simply goes with the territory.
>> This does not fit very well with the fact that I strongly supported
>> the replacement of Turnbull (higher in the polls as preferred PM)
>> with Abbott (less popular in the polls) solely on the grounds that
>> he is an AGW voodoo believer.
>
> It fits perfectly. Turnbull is a liberal, Abbott is of the right and
> his core beliefs coincide with yours.

No. All it fits is your imagination. Levi confuses socialist policies of
wealth redistribution with propaganda which, as Monckton shows
(irrefuted to this point) will _not_ significantly "help" the world
climate... not that it needs help anyway. Turnbull is a "me too" on
introducing punitive but useless carbon pricing. I don't know his
current stand, but I don't imagine he's wanting to favour the new
position of developed nations (a la Durban) and opt for no action until
2020. He would, like Gillard, have Australia stand as a lone laughing stock.

>
>>
>>> That is, their skepticism is motivated to a large extent by
>>> political ideology rather than rational thought, and when
>>> ideology becomes involved in any cause truth and objectivity are
>>> among the first casualties. Is their deception intentional?
>> You have, I believe, summed up the case "in favour of" AGW very
>> nicely. It's not about truth at all, but is politically motivated
>> as part of a wealth redistribution ideology, as confessed by OTTMAR
>> EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL: "But one must say clearly that we
>> redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
>> Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic
>> about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that
>> international climate policy is environmental policy. This has
>> almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with
>> problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. "
>>
>> I believe you're right on the mark when you say, "when ideology
>> becomes involved in any cause truth and objectivity are among the
>> first casualties." I like to believe in real science revealing the
>> truth, above and beyond anything else.
>
> I guess it depends on which side of the fence you sit. Those on your
> side will accuse the mainstream of bias and a politcal agenda, as
> they will you. Time will be the judge of the science, I'm no more
> than an interested bystander.

Time (the last 10 years or so) has already judged AGW to be just plain
wrong. AGW "theory" claims that AGHGs drive the temperature. It
effectively outlaws negative feedbacks. Yet the temperature ceased its
coincidental increase and continues to plateau/cool in the face of
record AGHG emissions, increasing at record rates each year.
Ergo: AGW -> bunkum.

>
>
>>
>>> I believe in individual responsibility and free will, so I
>>> believe that it is.
>>
>

[Swampfox]

On 1/01/2012 12:26 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:

<snip>

>> The majority do, it's beyond question.
>
> Those who choose to take a "public" position on the issue _say_ they do.
> There are no funding opportunities in non-AGW. No indication that this
> is a majority though. If you have the numerical data to support the
> "majority" claim, please provide.

You may or may not be right that AGW is a load of shite but to argue
that the majority scientific opinion is not that AGW is real and
provable is arrant nonsense.
How does one get "numerical data", survey every scientist on the planet?
No, to guage majority opinion we need look no further that the public
statements of scientific institutions and organisations of world repute,
who *represent* the opinion of their constituents.
They are unanimous.

>> If you refute that then name one internationally recognised
>> scientific organisation which dissents.

Well?


<snip>

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Thanks. I'll put these on my shopping list.

> What do you want the putty for?

The wind-out frames are done in linseed putty, not beading. I was just
going to copy what was already there.

> You're going the wrong way with the router table IMO, but you should
> have some fun trying. ;-)

Now that I've thought of it, I'll have to try it. If timber starts
flying all over the workshop, I'll just go buy it. If I start with a
wide board (~200mm) then alternate between bevelling an edge on the
router table and sawing off that bevelled edge - what you suggested
above I guess.

"finger jointed treated pine or western red cedar, either of which will
outlive KD by years in external situations. (Lewis may have WRC)"

What's WRC here? And what is the significance of "finger jointed"? I'm
guessing KD is kiln-dried?

[Swampfox]

On 1/01/2012 12:38 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:

<snip>

Yeah, OK, so putty in the sashes and glazing bead for the fixed panels?
New windows will be all done in glazing bead these days unless you
specify putty, in your case linseed putty will be fine, but get some
paint on it within a week or so.

>
>> You're going the wrong way with the router table IMO, but you should
>> have some fun trying. ;-)
> Now that I've thought of it, I'll have to try it. If timber starts
> flying all over the workshop, I'll just go buy it. If I start with a
> wide board (~200mm) then alternate between bevelling an edge on the
> router table and sawing off that bevelled edge - what you suggested
> above I guess.

If you've got an electric hand planer you could run the bevel in two
passes in no time flat, a few ups and downs and imperfections won't
matter for an external glazing bead.
On most glazing bead the bevel is less than 45 deg, which you can do
with the planer by just holding it flatter, a standard chamfer bit for
your router will be 45 deg.

>
> "finger jointed treated pine or western red cedar, either of which will
> outlive KD by years in external situations. (Lewis may have WRC)"
>
> What's WRC here? And what is the significance of "finger jointed"? I'm
> guessing KD is kiln-dried?

WRC is western red cedar, the LOSP treated pine is finger jointed.
Pine is a knotty timber, the knots are removed and sections are glued
and finger jointed together, then it's machined to different
sizes/profiles, it's sold pre primed.
Place your two hands out front of you with the palms facing you, spread
the fingers a little then bring the hands together, that's the idea of a
finger joint.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 1/01/2012 12:37 PM, Swampfox wrote:
> On 1/01/2012 12:26 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The majority do, it's beyond question.
>>
>> Those who choose to take a "public" position on the issue _say_ they do.
>> There are no funding opportunities in non-AGW. No indication that this
>> is a majority though. If you have the numerical data to support the
>> "majority" claim, please provide.
>
>
> You may or may not be right that AGW is a load of shite but to argue
> that the majority scientific opinion is not that AGW is real and
> provable is arrant nonsense.

Then please provide the figures behind this statement, as requested.

> How does one get "numerical data", survey every scientist on the planet?

So you're saying now that you just invented or parrotted this
unverifiable statistic?

> No, to guage majority opinion we need look no further that the public
> statements of scientific institutions and organisations of world repute,
> who *represent* the opinion of their constituents.

No. That assumes that you get a representative press coverage. This is
clearly not the case, as seen from the number of papers which cast doubt
on AGW "theory", which never get any public coverage. Jo Dumb Public
then gets the impression that "everybody agrees". Get it?

> They are unanimous.
I'm sure the ones you see, supporting AGW, are.

>>> If you refute that then name one internationally recognised
>>> scientific organisation which dissents.
>
> Well?

1. You clearly don't comprendi the logical fallacy of "appeal to
authority" as applied to science. Albert Einstein put it in a nutshell,
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." That experiment has been done - it's the
temperature record over the past decade, and it's proved AGW theory to
be wrong.

2. You really have no clue as to how scientific organizations get their
funding, do you? I saw 3 Defence Ministers pass through my time in govt
R&D. Each one had their own wizzbang ideas on how things should go.
Although eminently unqualified to make such suggestions, the SOP was to
"all hail" the brilliant ideas of the brilliant new minister, say yes,
yes, yes, get your increased funding, then back to business as usual.
*Any* organization will make the right noises to get more money. I
believe you even used this expression to describe what the Gillied
guvmnt should be doing with their rooled out carbon tax.
>
>
<unsnip>

Time (the last 10 years or so) has already judged AGW to be just plain
wrong. AGW "theory" claims that AGHGs drive the temperature. It
effectively outlaws negative feedbacks. Yet the temperature ceased its
coincidental increase and continues to plateau/cool in the face of
record AGHG emissions, increasing at record rates each year.
Ergo: AGW -> bunkum.

</unsnip>

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I guess I could use either. I was just thinking of copying the original.
Is beading any better/worse?

>>
>>> You're going the wrong way with the router table IMO, but you should
>>> have some fun trying. ;-)
>> Now that I've thought of it, I'll have to try it. If timber starts
>> flying all over the workshop, I'll just go buy it. If I start with a
>> wide board (~200mm) then alternate between bevelling an edge on the
>> router table and sawing off that bevelled edge - what you suggested
>> above I guess.
>
> If you've got an electric hand planer you could run the bevel in two
> passes in no time flat, a few ups and downs and imperfections won't
> matter for an external glazing bead.
> On most glazing bead the bevel is less than 45 deg, which you can do
> with the planer by just holding it flatter, a standard chamfer bit for
> your router will be 45 deg.

The angle is very much less than 45° - looking at them, more like 15° at
a guess. I was thinking of using a router bit something like this:
http://www.carbatec.com.au/881-corian-bevel-bit_c21228

I'd be rather more comfortable doing this than judging with an electric
plane, but it would be worth me trying both. I presume you're saying to
plane a half-angle bevel twice?

>>
>> "finger jointed treated pine or western red cedar, either of which will
>> outlive KD by years in external situations. (Lewis may have WRC)"
>>
>> What's WRC here? And what is the significance of "finger jointed"? I'm
>> guessing KD is kiln-dried?
>
> WRC is western red cedar, the LOSP treated pine is finger jointed.
> Pine is a knotty timber, the knots are removed and sections are glued
> and finger jointed together, then it's machined to different
> sizes/profiles, it's sold pre primed.
> Place your two hands out front of you with the palms facing you, spread
> the fingers a little then bring the hands together, that's the idea of a
> finger joint.

Yep, that makes sense. I know finger joints, but now realize why the
knotiness demands their use to make long lengths. Also adds to the
expense no doubt.

[Swampfox]

As I said earlier, and you either ignored or refused to answer, name one
reputable scientific organisation with a dissenting view.
Just one.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

You must be on the thick side. Can't you understand that since I don't
buy into the logical "appeal to authority" fallacy, and that I've
pointed out my adherence to Einstein's wisdom that, "No amount of

experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove

me wrong" and that AGW has been proved to be wrong by a single
experiment, that I don't take the slightest notice of how many vote for
or against the AGW line? I'm not interested in popularity polls based on
hopeful funding outcomes; I'm interested in science. There could be a
million "votes" on each side and I wouldn't know, because I don't care
about the politics, just the science.