12 Responses to Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims

1. omanuel says:

   June 3, 2015 at 13:18

   Christopher Monckton is right. The AGW tale is like a religion, devoid of rational thought. Just as the Vatican was wrong to deny that the Sun is a fountain of energy that powers the solar system in 1543, . . .

   The Vatican and the AGW crowd are wrong today to deny that the Sun has dominant control over the climate of every planet in the solar system.

   While I do not personally deny that life could have evolved on planets that orbit stars other than the Sun, extra-terrestrial humanoids was the only far-fetched part of an intriguing report that UFO sightings may have been a cover for Orwellian Big Brother:

   http://viewsandpreviews.com/the-ufo-smokescreen-operation-clampdown/

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     June 3, 2015 at 13:38

     Thanks Oliver, current data on the sun’s influence on our global warming is becoming more obvious.
     You know the Sun’s science from experience and technical understanding, and I know it is obvious that the Sun is our only source of warming, (maybe a little from our interior molten core).
     NO account is being taken by the IPCC “experts” as to variations in the Sun’s actual heating energy effects.
     The primary energy source, which we know varies in various cyclical and possibly random patterns, is assumed to be constant. A strange omission in “their science”.

     Reply
     • omanuel says:

       June 3, 2015 at 13:50

       For seventy years, they have hidden, adjusted or overlooked experimental data and observations that show the Sun:

       1. Made our chemical elements
       2. Birthed the solar system, and
       3. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today.

       They are afraid to backtrack now, after spending billions of dollars in grant funds and giving Nobel and Crawfoord Prizes to those who twisted data to fit:

       1. AGW
       2 . SSM – standard solar model
       3. SNM – standard nuclear model
       4. BBC – Big Bang cosmology model
2. Ken Pedlow says:

   June 3, 2015 at 14:22

   What are the author’s credentials to debunk a science conclusion endorsed by 95% of the world’s scientists? Big claims need to be supported by hard evidence

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     June 3, 2015 at 15:09

     Be very careful what you put in writing Ken.
     I can’t answer your comment adequately here but ask that you,
     1. Read the article right through.
     2. Search my blog for “global warming” or “climate change”.
     3. Check out the WUWT blog site.
     4. Read in particular, the absolute debunking of the “95% consensus” claim.

     The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

     
     If you then still believe it, please tell me about the hard evidence that is supposed to support global warming alarmism. 🙂
     (I realize that not many people have the time to read as much as I, nor have an open (cynical?), technical mind with which to assess the science impartially. That however has enabled me to join the thousands of academic people who recognize the CAGW movement as scientifically unsupportable).

     Reply
3. Webb Nevis says:

   June 3, 2015 at 14:41

   A gentle reminder:

   The reality is that humans burn fossil fuels everywhere around this planet. In return, there are CO2 and Heat. CO2 is good for plants. Heat is good as well because it means life for human beings.

   However CO2 and Heat will affect environment. BUT how large and to what extent, this is the BIG Question.

   There is a minor question. Who defends your ideas. This Gentleman, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, is not a scientist. He is just a Repeater. One should ask WUWT isn’t there anybody else around you to tell such an important story to the young people?

   You don’t believe it? Just watch this video and see what a mess.

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     June 3, 2015 at 16:03

     Hi Webb,
     Firstly, re Lord Monckton, he is entitled to be called “Lord”, as his peerage supports his status as a Viscount. Ref http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lord
     Lord (lɔːd)
     n
     2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
     a. a title given to men of high birth, specifically to an earl, marquess, baron, or viscount.
     Secondly, the video you link is well dated as it refers to a 7 year global temp pause, now actually 17 years. The video is a poor example of support for the CAGW “science”. The treatment of Lord Monckton was a disgrace. Its absence of scientific and professional integrity makes it as big a sham as the CAGW movement itself is.
     Thirdly, The correctness of information is hardly dependent on the messenger, it is either the truth or not! Judgment needs to be addressed to the information and that requires the judge to understand it and make their own conclusion.
     Fourthly, if you care to check out the WUWT site you will quickly find a plentiful supply of scientists who have come, scientifically, to the same conclusions as Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts, myself and a great many others.
     Lastly, you might like to read my response to Ken Pedlow’s comment as it has much relevance.
     Undoubtedly, there is a mess, but the real question is – to whom do we sheet home the responsibility for that?
     Thanks for your contribution, I hope I have made an appropriate response.

     Reply
     • Webb Nevis says:

       June 3, 2015 at 22:14

       Excellent response. But the issue was not about PAUSE, WUWT and other known people. My point was about Lord Monckton is not a scientist. You reject the reality of the video. Do you mean that our Lord is scientist now in 2015? It isn’t like the “PAUSE”. Isn’t it?
4. Ken McMurtrie says:

   June 3, 2015 at 23:37

   Last attempt Webb.
   Perhaps you missed the point – the messenger does not make the credibility, the message contains its own credibility. Me thinks we operate on different wavelengths.
   Good fortune!

   Reply
   • Webb Nevis says:

     June 4, 2015 at 03:14

     Ken!
     Thanks for your response!
     What a good point.
     Well, Physics and Literature.
     Poor youth, they must learn physics of a Belletrist.
     I watched the video for several times. The Sen. said”….deniers did not produce a scientist ….even one scientist….”
     I’m sad about the situation.
     When I see something about our Lord, again it reminds me the video. So simple.
     Webb*

     Reply
5. omanuel says:

   June 3, 2015 at 23:50

   This one page introduction to science for teachers shows the foundations of physical sciences were altered seventy years ago to try to hide the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms like U:

   Click to access Introduction.pdf

   Click to access Introduction.pdf

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     June 4, 2015 at 00:18

     Thanks Oliver.
     I feel that the way to convince the public, teachers, etc is to connect the dots, as they say. A progression of cause and effect, slow and methodical which the public can understand.
     One step at a time, small steps if necessary. In terms that people will understand.
     Difficult for a scientist, I guess, but necessary if you want your message to be understood.
     Almost a breakdown to secondary school levels, otherwise you are too far above common public comprehension.
     With great respect, regards, Ken.

     Reply