LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

Saint_Ann said:
What exactly is "the environment"?
Click to expand...
You can Google that.

It really boils down to how does it affect me me. Otherwise, what does it matter?
Click to expand...
What mass of plastic particulates is inside your body right now? Inside the bodies of your kids and grandkids? How much can you survive? How much disruption do you think the web of life can survive?

If you ignore the environment, it will go away.
 

http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW 3-31-18.pdf

...Monckton’s amicus curiae brief has the advantage of using the language and concepts of the IPCC and USGCRP, the climate establishment. The brief illustrates a severe error in calculations. If Monckton is correct, the fear of carbon dioxide causing dire global warming is without any theoretical support. Before submission, his work was reviewed by two members of the SEPP Board of Directors, Chairman Tom Sheahen and Willie Soon, as well as others versed in the mathematics and concepts traditionally used by the IPCC.

Monckton’s brief goes to the 1979 Charney Report, published by the National Academy of Sciences, which speculated, without evidence, that the slight warming caused by CO2 will be amplified by a more powerful warming caused by increased water vapor. The warming from CO2 is established by decades of experimentation in many laboratories. The amplification, “positive feedback,” from water vapor has not been found. The concept of positive feedback was introduced in the design of electronics, particularly amplifiers, to carefully and dramatically increase a weak electronic signal. For decades, the concept has been discussed in social sciences, with little precision as to meaning or amplification.

The Charney Report speculated that with a positive feedback from water vapor, a doubling of CO2 would eventually cause an increase in temperatures of 3ºC plus or minus 1.5 ºC. Except for an increase in the lower bound in its 2007 report, the IPCC has continued this speculated estimate for over 25 years, since its first report in 1990. In its influential Second Assessment Report (SAR or AR2, 1996) the IPCC declared the amplified warming was a “hot spot” centered over the tropics at about 33,000 feet (10 km) and incorrectly termed it the “distinct human fingerprint.” The IPCC continued the “hot-spot” to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), which was very influential for the UK to adopt its very expensive energy policy under its Climate Change Act, 2008. Almost forty years of atmospheric temperature data from satellites covering the surface to 50,000 feet (15 km), fail to reveal the “hot spot.” The concept should be relegated to one of the many, very expensive IPCC myths.

Monckton takes the concept embodied in the Charney Report, uses a classic feedback model from electrical circuitry, then calculates what would be the expected warming from a doubling of CO2, if the feedback concept were correctly used. Monckton, et al. calculate a value of 1.2 ºC – less than one half of that used by the IPCC and the Climate Establishment. Monckton finds a serious error in the calculation of a positive feedback as stated in the Charney Report. It should be noted that the Charney Report did not contain the calculations from the modelers on which its speculative findings were based. Also, at the time, the method for calculating global temperatures from atmospheric data had not been established...

http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW 3-31-18.pdf


​


​
 


Amicus Curiae Brief

Four Conclusions (p. 1):

1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena

2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows

3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences

4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables, and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
​


​
The professors are accomplished and well-credentialed scientists. William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University. Dr. Happer also has extensive experience advising the government on energy research and policy, having served President George H.W. Bush’s administration as the director of energy research in the Department of Energy.

Steven E. Koonin is the founding director of New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress. Dr. Koonin previously served as the second Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy in President Barack Obama’s administration. In this role, Dr. Koonin oversaw science, energy, and security activities.

Richard S. Lindzen is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Lindzen’s research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its eole in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity

. Each of the professors has been elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, a highly selective non-profit organization recognizing the country’s most distinguished researchers
. Biographies for the professors appear at the end of Exhibit A to this motion.



http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...aign=CO2,+A+Climate+Surprise&utm_medium=email

​


​
 
BoyNextDoor said:
His using Monckton’s brief makes the word "disingenuous" unnecessary.

But definitely a twat! :)
Click to expand...
Don't denigrate twats. He's a dicklet.

People figured out climate change a long, long time ago. Cut down all the trees and the turf becomes desert; paradise becomes hell. Romans knew that when they salted Carthage. French learned that when they deforested Indian Ocean islands. As goes the landscape, so goes the climate, and vice-versa. Disingenuous dicklets seem to have unlearnt important stuff. Pathetic.
 


“After publishing their 2003 E&E article and reviewing Mann’s unpublished responses to it, McIntyre and McKitrick [M&M] submitted an extended critique of the errors and misrepresentations in MBH98 to Nature magazine, which had published the first of the hockey stick papers. Nature solicited a response from Mann et al., and after examining it they ordered Mann et al. to publish a detailed correction and restatement of their methodology, which appeared in June 2006. M&M also extended their critique of Mann’s statistical methodology and submitted it to GRL, which had published the 2nd hockey stick paper, and after peer review GRL published their study. Mann et al. never submitted a response. A panel led by Professor Wegman later conducted an independent review of the mathematical and statistical issues and upheld the M&M critique. A panel of the National Academy of Sciences also conducted an examination of the whole issue of paleoclimate reconstructions and upheld all the technical criticisms M&M made of Mann’s work, going so far as to publish their own replication (North et al., 2006, pp. 90-91) of the spurious hockey stick effect M&M identified.”

(McKitrick 2018)



​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
“Mindful masturbation” as an alternative to porn consumption – who has experience with this concept?
Replies
6
Views
728
Ash999
A
SkyBubble
What we lose when we rush past pain
Replies
3
Views
208
SkyBubble
SkyBubble
Mello_SixtyNine
Fixing California after the wildfires
Replies
4
Views
491
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
10
Views
1K
butters
butters
LukSkyFokker
Excellent way to Watch TV Shows and Movies for Almost Free
Replies
4
Views
1K
JDredd711
JDredd711
Back
Top