Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Monckton's Errors: Denier Global Warming Paper Debunked

altenergyaction.org — A detailed list of the errors in Monckton's July 2008 Physics and Society article - this is what happens when real science has a go at Denier logic and math, it's not pretty.

Bury

greenfyre 66 days ago

40 diggs
digg it

Moonkeeper, on 08/05/2008, -3/+7Being a global warming "denier," I dugg this story up. While I disagree with the idea that global warming is man-made, it is nice to see legitimate point-counterpoint debate on the subject instead of...

"You are an elitist who hates human advancement!!"
"Yeah, well you were paid off by BIG OIL!!!"
- greenfyre, on 08/05/2008, -1/+10Thank you, dugg up tor rational and respectful.
  
  But if I may, I am curious, given the science, on what basis you are a denier (and heck, you may even be one of those rare creatures, a legitimate skeptic). Thanks
  - Moonkeeper, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1"you may even be one of those rare creatures, a legitimate skeptic"
    
    lol :)
    
    First off, I don’t believe that the Earth is not warming up. It is obvious that it is warmer now then it was 20 years ago. Secondly, I don’t throw out the possibility that man-made actions can cause global warming.
    
    My reasoning for not believing natural global warming deniers:
    
    The Earth has warmed and cooled in the past. We know for example that glaciers carved the Great Lakes. We also know that NJ (where I am sitting right now) was under water at some time. We even know that the first Americans walked across the Bering Strait. Somewhere in the middle the Earth warmed, cooled and warmed again.
    
    Moving to more narrow time periods, the medieval warming period and the little ice age both occurred before the industrial revolution. During the medieval warming period it was warm enough to settle Greenland and Iceland, and was the only time that England competed with France in the wine trade. The little ice age has been verified by global glacier advances. Scientists have speculated that the little ice age was caused by decreased solar activity. Right now the sun is increasing solar activity. Given this, how is the current warming out of the ordinary?
    
    Moving to even more narrow time periods, between 1900 and the 1930s, the Earth warmed (according to NASA, the 30s were warmer then the 90s). Between the 1940s and the 1970s the Earth cooled. Now the Earth is warming again. Were we not polluting during all of those time periods? How is the current warming trend out of the ordinary?
    
    Getting any narrower gets away from talking about a climate and goes more towards talking about weather patterns. From the paper: “Phenomena on less than a 20-year time scale are not relevant to a climate discussion.”
  - vikingcoder, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4"natural global warming deniers"
    
    What? That is utterly ridiculous. Anthropogenic global warming is in addition to the natural trends, which are currently in a cooling phase.
    
    I find it equally amusing when people point to knowledge of historical climate in an attempt to disprove knowledge of current climate.
    
    "We knew what happened back then, so we don't know what is happening now."
    
    http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspot ...
    http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-t ...
    The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.
    
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-h ...
    The global temperatures from 1945-1975 showed no real long-term trend, only a very slight increase.
    
    “Phenomena on less than a 20-year time scale are not relevant to a climate discussion.”
    
    Which is why claims of a single year temperature drop "canceling global warming" are hilarious.
  - greenfyre, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2@moonkeeper
    
    Viking Coder has it right. If you do a little investigating (and not much) you will find that the climate scientists (who are teh ones who discovered historical variation and described it) know all about historical natural variation. It is well understoodf and accounted for.
    
    and btw, Peak of solar activity was 2001 http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?typ ... we are now in a quiet period.
- neognostic, on 08/05/2008, -1/+8I'm not a denier, and I too dugg this story up. I don't agree with all Global Warming people that it is 100% man made, but I also totally disagree with those who say that man has no effect.
  We are dumping billions of tons of man made waste in our air, water and into Mother Earth. To say that has no effect is just insane. Whether you believe in global warming or not, does it not make sense to move to alternative sources of non-polluting energy, reduce emissions, and reduce waste that we dump into our rivers and landfills? How can this not make sense to even the most dyed in the wool denier?
  We must take better care of our planet, and don't forget populations running out of control.
- GRTWHT, on 08/05/2008, -2/+2I'd like to applaud this for facts and logic rather than sensationalism as well, but I can't simply because of the description and title using the term "denier".
  
  This is a derogatory term created/used just to create a negative implication about anyone that 'denies the truth'.
  
  Take out deniers and I'd digg it as well.
  - monoa, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4But Monckton is not a skeptic - he is simply denying any and all evidence that proves anthropogenic climate change is real. He has started out with absolute certainty that he is right and that he just needs find the proof. He has demonstrated colossal ignorance and arrogance in producing a 'sciency' paper that he thinks debunks decades of scientific study and research by thousands of qualified and talented scientists.
    
    Yes, 'denier' has negative connotations, but when someone is presented with mountains of incontrovertible evidence and still says "I don't believe it", they are not being skeptical - they are in denial.
  - GRTWHT, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1You've got a point there monoa. I'm not saying I totally agree, but you DO have a point.
    
    I've gotten so sick of the rhetoric from both sides that when I saw "denier", I immediately took it to be a 'if you aren't a true believer, you're a denier' attack and responded as such.
    
    Just to clarify: I consider myself to be agnostic about "anthropogenic climate change". I'm open to ideas from both sides, but I don't know the answers myself. Just like being religiously agnostic, my lack of beliefs makes me hated by both sides of the debate.
  - greenfyre, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2GRTWHT
    
    Monoa has it more or less as I apply it. I reserve 'skeptic' for those who have rational, fact based doubt and who question the science as it is, not deny it's very existance.
    
    Further, in a matter of only a few weeks we have seen the appearance of hoaxes like the APS story, the NASA backtracks story, David Evans, and so on. Frauds so transparent that a lobotomized squirrel would feel an inkling of suspicion and some inclination to fact check.
    
    And how does the Denier community respond? They fall all over themselves blogging and digging and spreading it. They damn near pee their pants in excitement to post this weeks "coffin nail for global warming". If it sports any claim of climate denial they will believe it no matter how absurd or idiotic ... "skeptic" just does not apply to this crowd.
    
    So while Denier may be offensive, it is accurate to describe those indulging in offensive behaviours.
    
    I would offer to adopt something else, but "Denier" now has some recognition value and I fear it is late in the game to start rebranding. OTOH they are most welcome to start adopting skeptical behaviour, in which case I will most happily use the appropriate nomenclature.
  - vikingcoder, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Are you seriously comparing science to religion?
    
    Are you agnostic about evolution & gravity too?
Lynx55, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Great to see, and great read. Problem is, I doubt many deniers will actually read it. Can they read? One wonders sometimes...
MorganMghee, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Oh, they can read, and collect a paycheck. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobi ...
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Monckton's Errors: Denier Global Warming Paper Debunked

Login or register to add a comment