We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Killer questions for climate extremists

The dynamic speaker Lord Christopher Monckton is on a speaking tour of Australia. For dates see travel bar this page.

Lord Christopher Monckton poses some killer questions for climate extremists:

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from "consensus" is a logical fallacy - the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the "consensus". Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the "consensus" is a "consensus" of experts is a logical fallacy - the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

4. There has been 0.6º Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than manmade increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?

6. In the past 247 years - almost a quarter of a millennium - the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?

7. Australia's carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia's CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC's own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006º Celsius degrees - if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006º Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people's money?

9. If Australia's carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6º C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?


  1. As long as you're talking about polar bears, I'd like to interject a point. Go back and take a close look at all of the pictures you've seen of polar bears floating on a bit of pack ice scarcely larger than the animal. Look closely. What's wrong with this picture. Pick any one of them.

    It's the shadows. All of them are on bright, sunny days and the bears shadow is nearly directly below him. I live in Alaska. There is only one time of year that this happens. Up here on THIS side of the ball we call that SUMMERTIME. And, as everyone but the Greenies knows, ice has a nasty tendency to melt in the summer.

    Ask why they are intentionally misleading us with photographic "evidence".

  2. 1. Climate forcing, this does nothing to disprove CO2 effect on the climate.

    Lol, 2 and 3 the same point isn't it... Besides I've yet to see an arguement amount to "there is a consensus, therefore it's true". By the way, appeal to authority is only fallacious if it fails to meet one or both of the tests:
    1.The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
    2.There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

    4. Not something I've really looked into, but it seems very strawman to me. How does this change the fact that CO2 is having a warming effect on the climate.

    5. I'm not sure it's wrong, I haven't read it, but I notice it doesn't say CO2 has no effect... Interesting... I thought you guys were trying to deny manmade climate change, not simply find that other things are having an effect aswell... (P.S. I wonder what's effecting the cloud cover?)

    6. What... what... what... lol oh yes... killer question there... Totally blows holes in all the science which shows CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that increased levels of CO2 has a warming effect...

    7. Sure, why not... It's about moving away from a high pollution economy, it doesn't end at 10 years, how many new technologies are going to be funded by that $150 billion that's going to help reduce our realiance on fossil fuel and pollution beyond the 10 year (and possibly even some within the 10 year mark). Change takes time.

    8. Again, it's not just about the 5% goal, it's about what happens after and how our society uses the worlds resources in the future... Besides his(your) arguement here basicly boils down to... "it costs money, spending money is bad, therefore don't do it...." Lol, not a strong arguement.

    9. Where did they get those numbers from? A quick calculation even using HIS $317 trillion and world GDP at 70billion per year (I.E. no growth in GDP) works out at 45%... so... um, if he is wrong with even such a basic calculation... Well, doesn't give me much confidence about how he arrived at the $317 trillion in the first place.

    10. Oh Oh, typical he said she said arguement... How does this prove man made climate change isn't happening again?

    1. In response to Nameo Ceo:

      1: "this does nothing to disprove CO2 effect on the climate"
      What about the virtually zero effect on temperature?

      2:lol - You start by saying " I've yet to see an arguement amount to "there is a consensus, therefore it's true" and then say - "There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion." Hmmmm.....

      None of your points hiy home.

  3. 1. CO2's effect on the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted (and therefore it's warming effect) has been proven time and time again by papers such as Evans (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) and Chen (http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf). Pointing to the air temp and saying, look there has been no change since date X does not prove or provide any evidence that CO2 does not effect climate.

    2. Perhaps you should re-read that comment. The quote "There exists..." is a test of the strength of an arguement from authority (appeal to authority if you prefer) It's one of the tests you use to tell if it's being used fallaciously. The quote is not a comment on climate change.

    None of my points hit home? Not even the one about his weird math skills? Doesn't that make you wonder about how he arrived at his other figure? It should... Anyway, none of his "Killer Questions" "hit home" either when all but 1 of them fail prove or even bring into question the underlying point that CO2 effects temp and the one that does is such a poor attempt that it can be easily dismissed with a 2 word response.

  4. Perhaps you should re-read those comments.

    DOn't you have a spell-check? Or do you over-ride it when it tells you that "arguement" is wrong?

    You say:
    "CO2's effect on the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted (and therefore it's warming effect) has been proven time and time again...."

    The warming effect of CO2 is a given, but do you understand The Logarithmic Effect of CO2

    Do you understand Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect

    1. I've always been terrible at spelling. I find that attacking someone over their spelling is, well, stupid. Perhaps I think that way because I'm not perfect at it, but I'm fairly confident it's more to do with the fact that people who attack others over their spelling generally are doing it for no other reason than to either attack said person or re-direct a conversation.

      Cool, so you agree that CO2 has a warming effect on the climate. Do you also agree that humans emit CO2? I note you've done something quite common in CC debates... Moving the goal posts... So just so we are clear, you believe in AGW just not in the predictions of how much hotter it's going to get? Even with the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing we still need to stop the CO2 growth which is currently happening. Or are you really suggesting that simply because more CO2 has less impact on relative radiative forcing the more there is in the atmosphere that we shouldn't worry about it. Who cares right? The more we pump out the less impact it has, therefore why stop! lol... How exactly does this help your stance again? What exactly is your stance btw?

  5. Nameo Ceo,
    Talk about moving the goal posts!
    Did you read the papers by Miskolzci? If you did you would have no reason to ask your questions.

    After that try: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature


    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

    1. Mmmm, How did I move the goal posts? lol... Why do climate change deniers seem to have such issues with answering questions, it really would be a much more productive conversation if you answered this: What is your stance? I'll answer it first if you'd like. I believe human activity is causing climate change and believe we should do something about it.

      Oh you mean I'm suppose to believe that more CO2 isn't going to have a warming effect because one scientist built a computer program (which has been proven to have errors in it: http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html) His little computer program also relies on assumptions which just don't hold true when faced with the real world. Even good old Dr Roy Spencer (Your "side" I believe) pokes holes in Miskolczi's work.

    2. Mmmmmm...

      "Why do climate change deniers seem to have such issue
      with answering questions"

      Now hang on, moving the goal posts again, Cameo Neo?

      Who's a Climate Change Deniers?

      I do not deny that climate changes. Climate has changed since the beginning of time. We have had Ice Ages when atmospheric CO2 was 4000 ppmv.

      You say I believe human activity is causing climate change and believe we should do something about it.

      Well, so do I. The well recognised UHI. (The same UHI that has warped much of our temperature data,)

      The real point is that there never has been any positive link between man-made CO2 emissions and runaway (and there is no runaway) global warming.

      If you can prove man made Co2 emissions are causing runaway warming, why not take up the $10K Challenge.

      Put up .... or ..... shut up!

    3. Lol, you are quite ammusing.

      Moving the goal posts implies that I'm asking you to prove something different to what I originally asked for. Asking a question such as what is your stance is not moving the goal posts, especially when those questions are clearly related to your comments about you accepting that CO2 has a warming effect.

      This however "If you can prove man made Co2 emissions are causing runaway warming, why not take up the $10K Challenge." Is moving the goal posts ;)

      This started with me calling into question "Lord" Moncktons killer questions... You then made a statement about "the virtually zero effect (CO2 has) on temperature?" and attacked a perceived error, which wasn't actually an error at all. At no point have I made any mention of runaway warming.

      Re CCD: oh come on... I'm sure your smart enough to know that I meant you denied man made climate change...

      CO2's warming effect is proven (you admitted that). Humans contribute CO2 to the climate. Therefore we have an effect, im not going to bother arguing how much of an effect since, quite frankly, it'll go no where.

  6. Nice of you to admit that the saturated effect of CO2 means it will go nowhere.

    1. If that was the case then why are we observing increases in greenhouse forcing that are directly attributable to CO2?

      Miskolczi is the only one suggesting that the Earth’s total greenhouse effect remains constant over time. Even people on your "side" have disagree and poked holes in this theory.

  7. Even people on your "side"?

    I didn't know that there were sides - I thought that the whole idea of the scientific method is to test the hypothesis and see if it can be falsified - AGW is a falsified hypothesis

    As to Roy Spencer's Comments on Miskolczi - some extracts

    "I do not understand a couple of the claims he makes."

    "I will provide what I think I understand at this point in time."

    And in the comments by Christopher Game:

    "As for Miskolczi’s calculations, your proposal that I just quoted above is simply mistaken. You have not understood at all what Miskolczi did or wrote. Your misreading or misunderstanding makes it impossible to carry on a useful discussion, until it is remedied."

    Christopher Game explains Miskolczi in a piece on Jennifer Marohasy's blog The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect:

    1. That's why side is in quotation marks.

      Miskolczi's calculations are all based on a false premise. If you start with shit, you are going to end up with shit.

      A couple more extracts:
      "But Miskolczi claims that there is no net exchange of infrared radiation between different layers of the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and surface of the Earth.
      If this were true, then (as far as I can tell) there is no way for IR radiation to affect the temperature of anything. I know of no one else who believes this, and it seems to fly in the face of common sense. "

      "On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,

      “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”"

      HIS OWN (Miskolczi's) observations didn't even agree with his assertion he made from them! (I.E. his observations didn't show that ED=AA) And yet he uses that as a basis for the rest of his work... Lol, it pretty much makes all of it useless in a debate about the earths climate. But you go ahead and believe that if you want.

      Also I find it funny, DOCTOR Roy Spencer isn't to be listened to in this, we'll listen to Christopher Game, a guy from Melbourne... Whom from reading the comments, gets his arse handed to him by Dr Spencer.

    2. Nameo Ceo:

      I have let this go through but please read our comment rules - if you again post remarks like "If you start with s**t," and "gets his a**e handed to him" the comment will be blocked.

      It is funny that some-one obviously using a nom-de-plume to hide his real identity, criticises some-one that he doesn't know as "a guy from Melbourne." LOL


    3. "I thought that the whole idea of the scientific method is to test the hypothesis and see if it can be falsified - AGW is a falsified hypothesis..."

      I notice that you (shifted the goal posts by) ignoring the link to the scientific fact that AGW is a falsified hypothesis

    4. Oops, sorry about that, won't happen again.

      I've been Nameo Ceo online for so long it's just second nature to use it. What I use as an online alias really has nothing to do with the fact that in Chris vs Spencer, Spencer won. Fact of the matter is that Maiskolczi's findings are based on a false premise and are therefore bogus.

      I didn't shift the goal posts by ignoring it, you shifted them by bringing it into the conversation. Which at that point was about Miskolczi's work and a possible saturated greenhouse effect, not whether AGW was a falsified hypothesis.

    5. "Responding to the post of February 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM by Nameo Ceo.

      I have changed my mind since writing my piece on Jennifer Marohasy's blog. Let me start afresh.

      Miskolczi's theory is original. It is based directly on empirical observations. It is a complete theory in the sense that it contains and expresses all its assumptions, and reaches a definite conclusion. In this game, this is a rarity. This is to be respected in itself. I would say it is an admirable rarity. It is unsympathetic of Nameo Ceo to apply harshly pejorative epithets to it (not to mention my beautiful anatomy), even if it is wrong. Dr Spencer was also, in my opinion, unsympathetic in his attack on it.

      First a personal reply. One can understand the lack of sympathy. For a believer in the doctrine of catastrophic greenhouse global warming (CAGW), obviously the conclusion reached in the original version of Miskolczi's theory is to be strongly attacked. For Dr Spencer, assuming Miskolczi's theory to be inaccurate in some way, and recognizing that there is an element of cultishness in the support of it, Dr Spencer must make it clear that he is not at all supportive of cultish objections to CAGW. He needs to keep his reputation quite clean of even an appearance that he would support such cultishness. Thus the unsympathetic vigour of his attack.

      Now to the physics. The sunlight heats the land-sea body surface during the day (though of course not at night), and that surface loses heat by radiation and by conduction-evaporation-convection. It is an empirical matter to measure the magnitudes and signs of the two components. At present Dr Spencer is considering the effect of wind speed on the conduction-evaporation-convection leg. Miskolczi did not attempt to examine that leg, but examined only the radiation leg. He made an empirical estimate of its magnitude and sign based on a fair dataset of radiosonde records.


    6. ......

      His purely radiative exchange calculations reached the result for that dataset that on global average approximately

      Aa = 1.03 Ed

      where Aa denotes the global average rate of absorption by the atmosphere of radiation emitted by the land-sea body, and Ed denotes the global average rate of absorption by the land-sea body of radiation emitted by the atmosphere.

      He then made what I think was a mistake. He pointed out that the that the radiation emitted by the ground and that emitted by the atmosphere have different degrees of anisotropy. He assumed an anisotropy correction factor of 1.03, which when applied led to the final conclusion that on global average

      Aa = Ed.

      If on an occasion Aa = Ed in a steady state, it is called radiative exchange equilibrium.

      It is a law of nature that for two bodies of equal temperatures in a steady state, it holds that radiative exchange equilibrium must prevail (except for special cases that need not be detailed here; bodies moving at near light speeds etc). The problem here is that the atmosphere and the land-sea body do not have equal temperatures, except locally where they are in contact, where there is practical near equality. The law's conclusion does not apply when its premise does not hold.

      The physical questions here are whether Miskolczi's dataset was reliable and whether his calculations were correct and whether his reasoning about the anisotropy correction was valid. In my reading, the dataset was fair enough, the calculations of radiative transfer were correct, but the reasoning about the anisotropy correction was not valid. In fact, in the text, there is hardly any such reasoning. The correction appears a bit like a rabbit out of a hat.

      Dr Spencer apparently does not regard this matter as open to empirical question. For him, it seems to be an a priori theoretical certainty that Aa > Ed. For Nameo Ceo to consider the possibility that Aa = Ed calls for pejorative epithets.

      For me, it is an empirical question, just a question of fact, to be answered by examining empirical data. Miskolczi's 2010 paper showed beautiful graphs of radiosonde records for which there was a large polar winter atmospheric temperature inversion, in which Aa < Ed. This happens also often enough at night over land far from the poles, though not to such an exent as for the polar winter. The empirical task is to combine statistically all the world-wide seasonal data, some of it showing occasions when Aa > Ed, and others when Aa < Ed, and rarely occasions when just precisely Aa = Ed. It is not a foregone theoretical certaintly that the overall average will turn out that Aa > Ed, with all respect to Dr Spencer. As it happens, in favour of Dr Spencer's view, there is a good reason to expect that it might be so, because, on many occasions, the troposphere is in effect on average cooler than the land-sea body. On the other hand, on the occasion of a strong temper ature inversion, the effective average tropospheric temperature is greater than the land-sea surface temperature, and so then Aa < Ed. Dr Spencer's case rests on the assumption that such strong inversions are only a statistically minor part of the data, occurring on relatively few occasions, and do not weigh in the overall average as much as the major part, for which there is no inversion, so that, by the most basic ideas of thermodynamics, Aa > Ed. Dr Spencer does not actually seem to acknowledge in what he writes about this that inversions can occur in which Aa < Ed; I think this is remiss of him. Dr Spencer is right to point to the likelihood of the correctness of his assumption, but it still remains only a likely assumption, that calls for empirical testing. True it seems likely enough, but not true that it is an a priori theoretical certainty beyond empirical question.


    7. .....

      If Miskolczi's assumption of the need for an anisotropy correction is mistaken, then it may be ignored, and his simple radiative calculation, that for the global average, approximately

      Aa = 1.03 Ed,

      seems approximately the right conclusion. I am guessing that this is so, but I do not have proof.

      Nameo Ceo uses this as a reason to apply pejorative epithets to Miskolczi's work."

      Yours sincerely,


    8. Christopher, if you are refering to "If you start with s@#t, you are going to end up with s^&t" as the pejorative epithets then I feel compelled to explain that I was only using it as a saying. I was not calling Miskolczi's work s$#t or trying to attack him in anyway. I was simply pointing out that if you start with a false premise your going to get the wrong answer.

      I agree with you, his error is when he claims Ed=Aa when his own emprical evidence suggested otherwise. That is why his work can not be used, as Geoff was attempting, to prove increases in CO2 will not have an effect on climate. Now if he had actually proved Aa=Ed then we wouldn't be having this conversation, he didn't though. I mean good on him for doing the work and for contributing but the fact is his theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny and therefore can not be used to prove anything.

    9. I am glad to see you say "Good on him for doing the work." Yes, it is not perfect. Nevertheless, I think it is a very interesting theory. At present it doesn't seem to solve the problem exactly, but that just puts it in the same accuracy category as billion dollar AOCGMs, while it is better than them in that its assumptions are stated completely and clearly and succinctly. Its theoretical prediction of the value for the global greenhouse gas optical thickness is remarkably close to the empirical result. Surely that must mean something, though at present it may be hard to say exactly what.

  8. With all that is at stake-proposed global warming and supposed catastrophic consequences v massive financial cost and possible political cost, you would think some bigger studies on the greenhouse effect should be performed. I would propose that a series of large identical sealed sheds with CO2 in some and regular air in others be set up in an area of the same solar radiation and sensitive temperature readings made from multiple points to account for convection effects. I firmly believe that most of the 33 degrees warmer the earth is compared to its black body temperature is from the pressure of the atmosphere. PV=nRT . This is high school science. The same effect is apparent on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn.On all these planets, including earth, there is a consistent reduction in atmospheric temperature with altitude and thus pressure of overlying gas.To refuse to debate the issue claiming "the science is settled" is simply not science and suggests that those who refuse to debate the issue have a hidden agenda they wish to hide or do not wish to compromise their funding.

  9. Climate "extremists" now, are we, Lord Monckton? Did some of your new dead friends, with whom you have been conversing, suggest that one to you?

    The only reason to dispute the modern consensus regarding climate science is because you have some vested interest in it being false. Claiming that it is not worth trying to fix the problem (which you maintain we do not have) is not longer tenable, given that organisations like the Pentagon, the International Energy Agency, and major re-insurance companies all recognise that climate change is a threat we can no longer afford to ignore.

  10. If I select Comment as , why do my comments say they are going to appear as anonymous?

  11. lackofenvironment makes the stupid statement:
    "Did some of your new dead friends, with whom you have been conversing, suggest that one to you?"

    Perhaps he/she should change her tag to lack of "enlightenment.

    Lackof then adds: "modern consensus regarding climate science." Are you aware, lackof, that the term consensus is in fact NON-scientific?

    1. Name calling is a sign of insecurity, Geoff. Were you perhaps bullied at school? Would you care to refute my argument; or are you just content to consider yourself to be saving the World from stupidity?

    2. Lackofunderstanding -

      I KNOW that the hypothesis of AGW has been falsified. (Google AGW a falsified hypothesis)

      I know that (as your nom-de-plume indicates) there is a Lack of something, actually the Lack is, although the IPCC was set up to find CO2 was causing runaway global warming, the hypothesis was busted (google AGW a falsified hypothesis)

      So the lack is - lack of proof that CO2 is causing runaway global warming.

      In fact, as the planet seems to be cooling, according to all the major bodies, why do alarmists continue to push a falsified hypothesis?

      Why do you, Lackof, continue to push the alarmist position and to use suberfuge to hide any real evidence by using phrases like: "Were you perhaps bullied at school?"

      The (unnecessary) answer is NO!

    3. Incidentally, are you prepared to apologise for saying that there were 9950 empty seats when there were actually 150 empty seats. That was an error of 663.33%.

      Boy oh boy, where is your apology?

    4. Lackofevidence:

      Are you really playing the devil's advocate) but really for the side of the good guys

      The Lack of evidence is on the side of the alarmists, the scramsters.

      If you have any evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are causing disastrous global warming, then you have earned yourself $10K Australian.

      Do you have evidence - or are you sitting in a vacuum of evidence?

      If you have evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway warming, then

      a) continue using your nom-de-plume: and
      b) Make a claim at $10K challenge.

      The challenge has been ther for two years, Lackof, and due to the "lackofevidence" my friend Peter's money is safe.

      No claims from James Hansen, No claims from Hadley CRU, no claims from Tim Flannery, Matthew England nor any of the Australian alarmists.

      And no doubtly, no claim from someone who has a Lack of Evidence - namely lackofevidence/

    5. If I have the decency, Geoff, (God only knows why) to call you by your first name and be reasonably polite to you, why can you not do the same to me? I have previously commented here using my real name, and it is not hard to work out or find out what that is. In order to avoid insulting you, I am bound to conclude that you are just pretending not to know who I am in order to make yourself feel better about being rude to me. With little due respect, this is pathetic for a man of your age; and is no substitute for having a rational basis for your beliefs.

      BTW, can you provide me with a link or a dated photograph as proof of your claim that, despite all the adverse publicity Monckton has recently received, he spoke to a large number of people?

    6. I will apologise, Geoff, if you can falsify the account of the Newcastle Herald newspaper, which has reported that Monckton spoke to about 40 people...?

    7. Name calling is a sign of insecurity? What about personal slights like "conversing with dead friends?"

    8. The Newcastle Herald (like all Fairfax papers) understated the size of the audience, Martin (I didn't know who you were but have now checked) However, as only a small audience was expected, the room was booked for an audience of around 200 people. It would have been hard to fit 9000 odd empty chairs into such a small space.

  12. I think you need to look up "nom-de-plume" in a dictionary. 'Lackofenvironment' just links to me Blog wherein I use my real name.

  13. The Geological Society of London has produced a well-balanced summary of why we should be concerned about anthropogenic doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can they have your $AU10k?

    If you don't feel that is definitive enough of a statement, then surely the American Institute of Physics has done a far more comprehensive job. Can they can win the money?

    However, you will, of course, never give away your money because any evidence that indicates CO2 is the problem will be dismissed because you already "know" that it is not the problem.

    This is like a flat-Earther asking for evidence that we live on a sphere; or a Young Earth Creationist asking for evidence that the planet is very old: It does not matter what evidence you are given; you will always find a way to dismiss it.

    1. Go your hardest, Martin. You can use diversions like "Flat Earth" and other inanities but you can't answer the challenge:

      $10K Challenge

    2. And you, Geoff, cannot dismiss the public views of the GSL or AIP (or any other professional body) without thus revealing that:
      (1) You believe you are smarter than the scientists themselves (marketplace of ideas fallacy); or
      (2) You believe the scientists are merely trying to perpetuate their research funding (conspiracy theory).

      This $10k challenge is therefore an unassailable fortress of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias in which your money is very secure.

    3. You miss a few possibilities so you are not serious.

      Re $10K Challenge, it is not MY money, but, as there is no causitive link, Peter's money is, as you say, VERY secure!


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!