|
Written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
|
|
Thursday, 19 July 2007 06:55 |
|
Introduction: A cursory examination of the list
of Gore’s errors is enough to demonstrate that each of them serves to magnify
the supposed planetary threat posed by “global warming”, or to pour scorn and
contempt on any who dare to gainsay the supposed “consensus”. Therefore we must
conclude that Gore’s movie was not science: it was sophisticated propaganda
that relied upon the ignorance of his cinema-going audiences and the fawning
acquiescence of news media whose editorial and political predisposition was in
any event in favor of presenting his Apocalyptic version of climate change
regardless of the fact that at so many points central to his argument his
presentation was fundamentally false.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 23 July 2007 07:32 |
|
Read more... [Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth]
|
|
|
Written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
|
|
Thursday, 19 July 2007 05:25 |
|
CLIMATE
cannot be accurately predicted more than a few weeks ahead with any respectable
degree of reliability. The unpredictability even of a simple mathematical
object whose initial state is not known in sufficiently fine detail has long
been proven. Climate is a complex, non-linear object (IPCC, 2001) and is,
therefore, a fortiori, impossible to
predict long-term.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 23 July 2007 07:32 |
|
Read more... [The Mathematical Reason Why Long-run Climatic prediction is Impossible]
|
|
Written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
|
|
Thursday, 19 July 2007 05:12 |
>
In a recent
paper, W. Aeschbach-Hertig (2006) of the Institute
of Environmental Physics in the University of Heidelberg promotes his view that
Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) are wrong to suggest that the human influence on
climate is negligible compared to natural forces driving the Earth’s climate. The
two authors are members
of the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern
California. We shall consider
his criticisms of Khilyuk and Chilingar’s paper seriatim, after first summarizing the paper itself.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 23 July 2007 07:32 |
|
Read more... [Rebuttal of “Rebuttal of ‘On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s Climate]
|
|
|
Written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
|
|
Thursday, 19 July 2007 04:38 |
>
FIGURES in
the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that
the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the
climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 23 July 2007 07:32 |
|
Read more... [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007, Initial Analysis and Summary]
|
|
Written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
|
|
Thursday, 19 July 2007 03:50 |
Abstract
>
It is often
said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change
will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The
present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus”
was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of
opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate
is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the
debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that
the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to
the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the
notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
|
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 April 2009 16:56 |
|
Read more... [“Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over]
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 24 of 25 |
