PDA

View Full Version : Climate change debate: Tim Lambert vs Lord Monckton



wilbur
03-05-2010, 02:53 PM
Lord Monckton, amateur denialist, debates Tim Lambert, amateur denialist debunker... its a good watch, and it is a pristine demonstration on just how guys like Monckton misrepresent the work of scientists.

Watch here:

http://media.smh.com.au/news-video/national-times/monckton-the-climate-debate-1133822.html

Tim Lambert runs a climate science blog called Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

FlaGator
03-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Lord Monckton, amateur denialist, debates Tim Lambert, amateur denialist debunker... its a good watch, and it is a pristine demonstration on just how guys like Monckton misrepresent the work of scientists.

Watch here:

http://media.smh.com.au/news-video/national-times/monckton-the-climate-debate-1133822.html

Tim Lambert runs a climate science blog called Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

He probably doesn't do it a well as AGW scientists misrepresent their work.

wilbur
03-05-2010, 04:58 PM
Well, except they don't, not really. Nearly all such claims otherwise come from people like Monckton.

Did you watch the debate? You must admit, it was pretty bad.

Articulate_Ape
03-05-2010, 05:36 PM
Well, except they don't, not really. Nearly all such claims otherwise come from people like Monckton.

Did you watch the debate? You must admit, it was pretty bad.

I watched it and totally disagree with you. I saw Monkton thinkiing critically and speaking eloquently, while Mr. Lambert nervously jabbered on about computer modeling calculations and referred to data and reports that have become suspect to all but those who wrote them and/or are making a living off of them. Lambert's reply to Monkton's point about falling seawater temperatures was ludicrous and a perfect example of an acolyte trying to defend his church; a new church of science that should never be.

I liken Lambert's arguments to the religious person who, when asked to prove that the Bible is 100% accurate to someone who does not believe that, points to Biblical scripture in an attempt prove it.

wilbur
03-05-2010, 06:00 PM
I watched it and totally disagree with you. I saw Monkton thinkiing critically and speaking eloquently,


You saw him speaking eloquently, sure. Thinking critically? Hardly. Did that critical thinking come in before or after Lambert played the audio from the scientist, Pinker, who was the author of the work that Monckton essentially lied about?



while Mr. Lambert nervously jabbered on about computer modeling calculations and referred to data and reports that have become suspect to all but those who wrote them and/or are making a living off of them. Lambert's reply to Monkton's point about falling seawater temperatures was ludicrous and a perfect example of an acolyte trying to defend his church; a new church of science that should never be.

I liken Lambert's arguments to the religious person who, when asked to prove that the Bible is 100% accurate to someone who does not believe that, points to Biblical scripture in an attempt prove it.

Seriously? Do religious arguments "yammer on about computer modelling calculations"? I know there are a couple philosophers who've tried to construct mathematical proofs of God, but no one really ever tries to debate them.

Monckton's entire thesis depended upon the climate forcing calculation you deride Lambert for talking about. Monckton was even the one who brought it up. Lambert decisively refuted Monckton's core argument surrounding the calculation, and actually showed Monckton to be pretty foolish in the process. It was a trivial mistake that Monckton made... extremely trivial... like, trivial enough to prove incompetence.

I'll readily agree that Monckton came off as a polished orator, and Lambert looked nervous and out of his element. Unfortunately, that doesn't help Monckton get his facts right.

Rockntractor
03-05-2010, 06:03 PM
You saw him speaking eloquently, sure. Thinking critically? Hardly. Did that critical thinking come in before or after Lambert played the audio from the Pinker, who was the author of the work that Monckton essentially lied about?



Seriously? Do religious arguments "yammer on about computer modelling calculations"? I know there are a couple philosophers who've tried to construct mathematical proofs of God, but no one really ever tries to debate them.

Monckton's entire thesis depended upon the climate forcing calculation you deride Lambert for talking about. Monckton was even the one who brought it up. Lambert decisively refuted Monckton's core argument surrounding the calculation, and actually showed Monckton to be pretty foolish in the process. It was a trivial mistake that Monckton made... extremely trivial... like, trivial enough to prove incompetence.


Somebody sure is holding onto religious conviction here, but it aint me, and it definitely wasn't Lambert. I'll readily agree that Monckton came off as a polished orator, and Lambert looked nervous and out of his element. Unfortunately, that doesn't help Monckton get his facts right. Sadly though, it looks like some care more about style.

You're full of shit!:rolleyes:

wilbur
03-05-2010, 06:07 PM
You're full of shit!:rolleyes:

See? Now THATS religious conviction.

Sonnabend
03-05-2010, 10:11 PM
See? Now THATS religious conviction.


7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY

THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.



“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said.

In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.


Poor wilbur just doesnt get it when the cold hard reality turns the AGW doomsaying into the farce it is.

"Denialist" is a slur used to denigrate anyone who dares argue with the "settled science" which isnt settled, isnt science, and has proven again and again to be nothing more than bare faced lies and exaggerated claims.

Oh and the Himalayas still arent melting.

Rockntractor
03-05-2010, 10:25 PM
Poor wilbur just doesnt get it when the cold hard reality turns the AGW doomsaying into the farce it is.

"Denialist" is a slur used to denigrate anyone who dares argue with the "settled science" which isnt settled, isnt science, and has proven again and again to be nothing more than bare faced lies and exaggerated claims.

Oh and the Himalayas still arent melting.

Wilbur is just not the sharpest tool in the shed!

Zathras
03-05-2010, 11:17 PM
Wilbur is just not the sharpest tool in the shed!

Hell, a bowling ball is a sharper tool than the AGW cultist Wlibur will ever be.

Articulate_Ape
03-06-2010, 12:36 AM
You saw him speaking eloquently, sure. Thinking critically? Hardly. Did that critical thinking come in before or after Lambert played the audio from the scientist, Pinker, who was the author of the work that Monckton essentially lied about?

Pop quiz, hot shot: You are Pinker, Monkton has referred to your work, you get a call saying that all future grant applications will be denied, what do you do? What do you do?

You don't get it do you, Wilbur. A branch of science has sold its soul for thirteen pieces of political silver. I love science. I love it because it is supposed to be an alternative to religion, not an alternative religion.



Seriously? Do religious arguments "yammer on about computer modelling calculations"? I know there are a couple philosophers who've tried to construct mathematical proofs of God, but no one really ever tries to debate them.

Monckton's entire thesis depended upon the climate forcing calculation you deride Lambert for talking about. Monckton was even the one who brought it up. Lambert decisively refuted Monckton's core argument surrounding the calculation, and actually showed Monckton to be pretty foolish in the process. It was a trivial mistake that Monckton made... extremely trivial... like, trivial enough to prove incompetence.

I'll readily agree that Monckton came off as a polished orator, and Lambert looked nervous and out of his element. Unfortunately, that doesn't help Monckton get his facts right.

Snap out of it Wilbur. You are more religious than I am. You have simply chosen one that feels comfortable to you.

wilbur
03-06-2010, 12:50 AM
Pop quiz, hot shot: You are Pinker, Monkton has referred to your work, you get a call saying that all future grant applications will be denied, what do you do? What do you do?

You don't get it do you, Wilbur. A branch of science has sold its soul for thirteen pieces of political silver. I love science. I love it because it is supposed to be the alternative of religion, not an alternative religion.


Ah yes, just what faith needs in a time of crisis - a conspiracy theory. Vast, far and wide, its arms reach... no, its not that Monckton was wrong - those darn scientists are just that good. Tell me, if Pinker was so concerned with funding, and if global warming contrarian findings were so likely to get funding pulled, why on earth did she publish such research in the first place?



Snap out of it Wilbur. You are more religious than I am. You have simply chosen one that feels comfortable to you.

Sure, fine, ok... you don't trust Pinker when she makes claims about research that she conducted, because she's obviously a conspirator to you... this still does not address the fact that Monckton fubar'd such a basic calculation and still subsequently had his primary thesis falsified.

wilbur
03-06-2010, 12:54 AM
Poor wilbur just doesnt get it when the cold hard reality turns the AGW doomsaying into the farce it is.

"Denialist" is a slur used to denigrate anyone who dares argue with the "settled science" which isnt settled, isnt science, and has proven again and again to be nothing more than bare faced lies and exaggerated claims.

Oh and the Himalayas still arent melting.

Actually some of the Himalayas are melting - its a little more complicated than a simple binary yes/no. Have you retracted the lies you have been repeating about Phil Jones yet?

Rockntractor
03-06-2010, 01:02 AM
Wilbur can't give up, he has been rattling along about this for so long it's the only thing he has to believe in. When this whole scam completely falls apart to the point where the government quits preaching it Wilbur will be devastated.

Articulate_Ape
03-06-2010, 01:08 AM
Ah yes, just what faith needs in a time of crisis - a conspiracy theory. Vast, far and wide, its arms reach... no, its not that Monckton was wrong - those darn scientists are just that good. Tell me, if Pinker was so concerned with funding, and if global warming contrarian findings were so likely to get funding pulled, why on earth did she publish such research in the first place?

I am sure she is kicking herself for it even now as she scrambles for funding. It is not a conspiracy theory to understand human nature, Wilbur. Science survives at the whim of those who fund it. While science in general and to date has maintained a level of integrity in this regard, the Cinderella of the scientific community (i.e. climatology) got invited to the ball by a prince named Al Gore. This "Cinderella" has had a grand time, but has lost its glass slipper. Unfortunately, the prince is not going to redeem this drama queen.



Sure, fine, ok... you don't trust Pinker when she makes claims about research that she conducted, because she's obviously a conspirator to you... this still does not address the fact that Monckton fubar'd such a basic calculation and still subsequently had his primary thesis falsified.

A calculation of what, Wilbur? Based on what? Scripture?

Swampfox
03-06-2010, 01:41 AM
Scientists can be bought. This wouldn't be the first time it's happened. Always be skeptical when a scientist has a vested financial, political or career-altering interest in the outcome. Be even more skeptical if that scientist won't share all the data and "loses data" when a given a freedom of information act request.

Sonnabend
03-06-2010, 06:34 AM
You mean lies like this one, Wilbur? Jones was the one telling the lies


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE

Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

Looks like you blew that one, too.

Himalayas melting? (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/5591-once-more-with-feeling-himalayan-glaciers-not-melting)


Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”

Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data.”


Typical of you, stick your fingers in your ears when the truth is told.



The IPCC also erred in its forecast of the impact of glacier melting on water supply, claims Donald Alford, a Montana-based hydrologist who recently completed a water study for the World Bank. One of the dire predictions that the IPCC report made was for water shortages in the region. “Our data indicate the Ganges results primarily from monsoon rainfall, and until the monsoon fails completely, there will be a Ganges river, very similar to the present river.” Glacier melt contributes only 3% to 4% of the Ganges's annual flow, says Kireet Kumar. Another piece of climate catastrophist propaganda debunked.

Articulate_Ape
03-06-2010, 01:01 PM
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/lambert-victim-of-his-own-spin/#more-7332