A while back Monckton sort of responded tot he videos Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) made about his misrepresentations and errors on the science of climate change. This eventually did leed to Monckton responding to the videos made about him. And the actual offer for a debate on Watts Up With That.
So instead of actually dealing with the excellent videos Potholer produced, he goes after a few lines of text. I think you can guess who made another excellent set of videos documenting how Monckton yet again contradicts himself:
I know the blogs will tell you that that a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature has been shown, and once you believe this it may be hard to convince you of the science. However let’s have a go….
There are two supposed correlations: Svensmark and Friis Kristensen wrote a paper on a correlation between sunspots and temperature during the 20th century, which they attributed to the varying intensity of cosmic rays with solar activity. However, this turned out to be the result of a mathematical error. Cosmic rays have been measured over the last 50 years and they vary with the 11-year solar cycle. There has been no increase at all, whereas average global temperatures have been increasing.
Shaviv and Veiser wrote a paper on a correlation between cosmic rays caused by the Earth’s passage through our galaxy’s spiral arms and global temperature over the last 500 million years. But Rahmstorf and others showed that Shaviv and Veizer may have misinterpreted the meteorite data on which the periodicity that passage was calculated, and the model doesn’t fit the data well anyway (by comparison, there’s an almost perfect correlation between CO2 levsla dn global temps over the same period.) while the press release that accompanied Shaviv and Veizer’s paper announced that their results showed that recent global warming can be explained by galactic cosmic rays, the paper itself said that that recent global warming canNOT be explained by galactic cosmic rays.
As I said in my video, read the scientific papers, not the blogs.
On a lot of blogs a quote has been circulating that the lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 made a shocking admittance.
The latest installment of Jesse Ventura’s highly successful Conspiracy Theory show exposed millions of viewers on national TV last night to the climate change fraud, blowing a giant hole in the global warming scam by exposing how its adherents comprise wealthy industrialists making billions in profits by fearmongering about the environment.
…
The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.
Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”
“Lord Monckton points to deletions from the chapter, and there were deletions from the chapter, to be consistent with the other chapters we dropped the summary at the end,” Santer admits to the program.
Commenting on The Alex Jones Show today, Lord Monckton said that this was the first time Santer had publicly admitted to deleting the information.
Unfortunately for these people who are crying victory it is not as clear cut as you might suspect at first glance. For starters this quote goes against everything Maurice Strong has said publicly and is quite out of character. But the most telling thing is that the video where he makes this admittance has a very obvious cut in what Maurice Strong is saying. If you know what you are looking for.
The following video from Potholer54 gives a very nice rundown on the spread of this incorrect quote and why it was deliberately done by the editors:
A while back Monckton sort of responded tot he videos Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) made about his misrepresentations and errors on the science of climate change. This eventually did leed to Monckton responding to the videos made about him. And the actual offer for a debate on Watts Up With That.
Well Sort of…