New Years Resolutions For AGW Climate Scientists: STOP LYING!

[Old Rocks]

For further information on the miserable little twerp that Monkton is;

Lord Monckton 8217 s Rap Sheet Climate Asylum

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see the shit monster has dropped a few pellets of crap on my thread.. Yet they ignore the likes of Gore, Mann, Briffa, Jones, Hansen and all the others who lie.. yet they bow down at their alter of lies...

 

[mamooth]

Billy, why did you also claim to be a meteorologist?

That term has a specific meaning, someone with at least a bachelors of science degree in a discipline related in the field and accreditation from a recognized meteorological organization. Talking heads without such credentials only refer to themselves as "weathercasters" or something similar.

Can you tell us what education and accreditation you have, that allows you to claim the title "meteorologist"?

 

[IanC]

It doesn't bother any of you that Goddard is using a stage name and that the real man has no qualifications?

there are lots of people on either side of the fence that dont use their real names on the internet. the price to be paid for a climate change skeptic is obviously higher.

 

[IanC]

For further information on the miserable little twerp that Monkton is;

Lord Monckton 8217 s Rap Sheet Climate Asylum

Monckton is annoying. he has a wall eye and Grave's disease so he could be a double for Marty Feldman. he also has an aristocratic sneer and a Cambridge vocabulary that drives people to distraction. the man is neither uneducated or stupid. the few people who were willing to debate him early on were soundly thrashed and now no one will face him in a public setting because they know he is better prepared and will make them look stupid.

as usual Old Rocks seems to think ad hom attacks are better than facts and logic. he also has a mystical belief that a degree in a specific field is a trump card over truth. except when it is a climate scientist using bad statistical methods against the advice of degreed statisticians, then the climate scientist wins.

ideas stand or fall on their intrinsic worth. it doesnt matter who speaks them. Climate science and AGW theory is untenable as it currently stands and needs a major re-work. I dont care if no one admits they are wrong, or that no one is 'to blame', I just want this mess to get cleaned up.

 

[Crick]

Monckton is annoying. he has a wall eye and Grave's disease so he could be a double for Marty Feldman. he also has an aristocratic sneer and a Cambridge vocabulary that drives people to distraction. the man is neither uneducated or stupid.

I could argue with that last point. The man has a bachelor's degree in journalism and chooses to ally himself with bad science.

the few people who were willing to debate him early on were soundly thrashed and now no one will face him in a public setting because they know he is better prepared and will make them look stupid.

The last time I checked, Ian, winning debates in front of an audience of reporters is not one of the methods by which the scientific method tests hypotheses. And that anyone with an actual stick in the fire has judged him to have won these things has certainly not always been the case:

Monckton and Watts Cut and Run from Debate. Blame 8220 hateful 8221 Climate Crocks. Climate Denial Crock of the Week
and
Monckton Myth 17 Debate vs. Denniss Part 1
and
Lambert Monckton debate on Youtube 8211 Deltoid
and

Peter Hadfield debate
In early 2012 Christopher Monckton penned rebuttals to journalist Peter Hadfield's YouTube eviscerations of his work for Watts Up With That.Anthony Watts agreed to publish Hadfield's rebuttals on his website and a debate broke out. After a couple of posts, in which Hadfield made numerous references to the sources that Monckton was misquoting and demonstrated why he believed Monckton to be wrong, Monckton mysteriously pulled out, claiming he was "too busy" to take part in a debate of "inconsequentialities"- an intriguing claim as he doesn't have a real job and the "inconsequentialities" in question concerned climate sensitivity, the main thrust of Monckton's argument. Peter Hadfield responded with an "Open Letter To Christopher Monckton" urging him to return to the debate[38]. No response was received. Monckton has found the time to pen numerous piece for Watts Up With That and travel the world questioning President Obama's birth certificate (see "birtherism"), but still refuses to engage Hadfield.

In fact, Ian, the only people I see consistently claiming that Christopher Monckton wins these debates are Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton.

as usual Old Rocks seems to think ad hom attacks are better than facts and logic. he also has a mystical belief that a degree in a specific field is a trump card over truth.

Do you mean ad hom attacks like these you just leveled against Old Rocks? If you want to avoid such things, address the ideas, not the man.

except when it is a climate scientist using bad statistical methods against the advice of degreed statisticians, then the climate scientist wins.

And here assuming that the advice of one Stephen McIntyre (MA, Statistics, 1971 - unused before getting into global warming and having seriously conflicted interests in oil and gas) is both objective and the product of the pinnacle of expertise in statistics.

ideas stand or fall on their intrinsic worth.

Which demonstrate themselves without human intervention? How does that work exactly Ian?

it doesnt matter who speaks them.

But it most certainly does matter who interprets them and who judges their scientific validity. Monckton has repeatedly shown himself unqualified to do so.

Climate science and AGW theory is untenable as it currently stands and needs a major re-work.

Says who?

I dont care if no one admits they are wrong, or that no one is 'to blame', I just want this mess to get cleaned up.

I'd first like an objective and supportable demonstration that it is a "mess", that it is "untenable" and "needs a major re-work" because otherwise, this is just another unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Monckton is annoying. he has a wall eye and Grave's disease so he could be a double for Marty Feldman. he also has an aristocratic sneer and a Cambridge vocabulary that drives people to distraction. the man is neither uneducated or stupid.

I could argue with that last point. The man has a bachelor's degree in journalism and chooses to ally himself with bad science.

the few people who were willing to debate him early on were soundly thrashed and now no one will face him in a public setting because they know he is better prepared and will make them look stupid.

The last time I checked, Ian, winning debates in front of an audience of reporters is not one of the methods by which the scientific method tests hypotheses. And that anyone with an actual stick in the fire has judged him to have won these things has certainly not always been the case:

Monckton and Watts Cut and Run from Debate. Blame 8220 hateful 8221 Climate Crocks. Climate Denial Crock of the Week
and
Monckton Myth 17 Debate vs. Denniss Part 1
and
Lambert Monckton debate on Youtube 8211 Deltoid
and

Peter Hadfield debate
In early 2012 Christopher Monckton penned rebuttals to journalist Peter Hadfield's YouTube eviscerations of his work for Watts Up With That.Anthony Watts agreed to publish Hadfield's rebuttals on his website and a debate broke out. After a couple of posts, in which Hadfield made numerous references to the sources that Monckton was misquoting and demonstrated why he believed Monckton to be wrong, Monckton mysteriously pulled out, claiming he was "too busy" to take part in a debate of "inconsequentialities"- an intriguing claim as he doesn't have a real job and the "inconsequentialities" in question concerned climate sensitivity, the main thrust of Monckton's argument. Peter Hadfield responded with an "Open Letter To Christopher Monckton" urging him to return to the debate[38]. No response was received. Monckton has found the time to pen numerous piece for Watts Up With That and travel the world questioning President Obama's birth certificate (see "birtherism"), but still refuses to engage Hadfield.

In fact, Ian, the only people I see consistently claiming that Christopher Monckton wins these debates are Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton.

as usual Old Rocks seems to think ad hom attacks are better than facts and logic. he also has a mystical belief that a degree in a specific field is a trump card over truth.

Do you mean ad hom attacks like these you just leveled against Old Rocks? If you want to avoid such things, address the ideas, not the man.

except when it is a climate scientist using bad statistical methods against the advice of degreed statisticians, then the climate scientist wins.

And here assuming that the advice of one Stephen McIntyre (MA, Statistics, 1971 - unused before getting into global warming and having seriously conflicted interests in oil and gas) is both objective and the product of the pinnacle of expertise in statistics.

ideas stand or fall on their intrinsic worth.

Which demonstrate themselves without human intervention? How does that work exactly Ian?

it doesnt matter who speaks them.

But it most certainly does matter who interprets them and who judges their scientific validity. Monckton has repeatedly shown himself unqualified to do so.

Climate science and AGW theory is untenable as it currently stands and needs a major re-work.

Says who?

I dont care if no one admits they are wrong, or that no one is 'to blame', I just want this mess to get cleaned up.

I'd first like an objective and supportable demonstration that it is a "mess", that it is "untenable" and "needs a major re-work" because otherwise, this is just another unsubstantiated assertion.

And Crick avoids facts and uses adhominem attacks on the people with whom he disagrees. Its rather funny the use of belittling comments because we do not toe the socialist line of thinking. Why dont you try disputing the facts? The problem is you cannot because empirical observed evidence lays your beloved models waste and their politically driven agenda of people/populace control as nothing more than a power/freedoms grab.

IF Monckton is so unqualified why does he remain a reviewer for the IPCC? IF Watts is so unqualified why is he also a reviewer for the IPCC? (added this year) Obviously your people think they are qualified or they are trying to co-opt them to take away their voices, which they fear. SO which is it? Is it because they fear them or is it because they are qualified? They are both very qualified and thus my summation is they are trying to silence them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, why did you also claim to be a meteorologist?

That term has a specific meaning, someone with at least a bachelors of science degree in a discipline related in the field and accreditation from a recognized meteorological organization. Talking heads without such credentials only refer to themselves as "weathercasters" or something similar.

Can you tell us what education and accreditation you have, that allows you to claim the title "meteorologist"?

My schooling is not of concern to you. You are obviously an uniformed drone and a moron. Why dont you pony up with your real name and all the schools you have attended along with all degrees you have? Lead by example you ignorant fool.

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares if they are lying or not?

Its not mattering anyway.


349 pages of win >> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mamooth]

If Monckton is so unqualified why does he remain a reviewer for the IPCC? IF Watts is so unqualified why is he also a reviewer for the IPCC?

Neither one is a review editor. Those 274 people are listed here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

"Reviewer" as it applies to Monckton and Watts basically means "requested to be a reviewer". Anyone who has published anything remotely relating to the field gets accepted.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If Monckton is so unqualified why does he remain a reviewer for the IPCC? IF Watts is so unqualified why is he also a reviewer for the IPCC?

Neither one is a review editor. Those 274 people are listed here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

"Reviewer" as it applies to Monckton and Watts basically means "requested to be a reviewer". Anyone who has published anything remotely relating to the field gets accepted.

LOL... Too funny, Monckton was indeed a reviewer and Watts accepted just a few months back. (Monckton AR4- Watts will be the current one)

 

[Crick]

Here was the reality of Monckton appointment as an expert reviewer: Climate Science Denialist Lord Monckton s IPCC Appointment That Wasn t DeSmogBlog.

Watts seems to have taken the same route and to be encouraging his readership to join the process:

Register to become an expert reviewer for IPCC WG1
Here’s an opportunity for input in the next IPCC report. I encourage all readers with relevant expertise to register. See link below. Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is pleased to announce that the First Order Draft of the WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Climate…

ipcc reviewer Search Results Watts Up With That

Let me clarify a small point. You said "Watts accepted a few months back". No he did not. He might have applied a few months back, but no one at the IPCC offered him anything he might accept. Monckton either. At least Watts didn't lie about it like Monckton did.