So Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC has resigned!
When the rats start leaving the ship .....

qanda I understood that he did, but I can't find anything other than the one that you have unearthed, so apparently he hasn't. So, have you got a substantive point or are you just trying to avoid commenting on the Pinker piece?

I think the preface that the APS put before Monckton's article is disgraceful, btw. You either publish or you don't. It's a pretty good demonstration of the sort of political pressure that the hysterics pull on anyone or anything who bucks the party line. The appropriate response would have been something in the same journal demonstrating where his maths is wrong.

You might note from my final par in the previous comment that I am not defending either Monckton or Lambert.

So, back to the Pinker piece.

<< I think the preface that the APS put before Monckton's article is disgraceful, btw. You either publish or you don't. It's a pretty good demonstration of the sort of political pressure that the hysterics pull on anyone or anything who bucks the party line. The appropriate response would have been something in the same journal demonstrating where his maths is wrong. >>

Graham, this is what the editor of the APS Newsletter (and please, it is NOT the APS Journal) said:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

It really isn’t that hard, just follow the internal links.

Whilst not responding to Monckton’s article, this is what the Newsletter also included, a piece by Hafemeister & Schwartz:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

This is one response the articles generated in the subsequent Newsletter

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/shore.cfm

Aside: surprise surprise, the embedded link to Monckton's own SPPI.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

Here is another response;

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/wurtele.cfm

Sheesh, even the Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley himself said (keeps saying, in fact) that he has published a paper on climate sensitivity in a peer reviewed Journal. Of course (because he is a very polished ‘performer’) people who don’t know any better (or can’t be bothered doing the fact checking themselves – even though they call themselves ‘sceptics’) believe him - because it fits with what they want to believe.

And this is just but one example of what is happening out in the mainstream media, by unscrupulous journalists, media shock-jocks, and those peddling a belief that gels with their own political (or religious) leaning.

A lot of linking and fact checking, yes.

The substantive point Graham?
It is very easy to unintentionally (in your case) or intentionally (by Monckton and other anti-AGW miscreants) to distort or misrepresent the facts. If Monckton is so "loose" with his own bona-fides, what of his climate sensitivity "assertions"?

The Pinker piece?
I said “I would be interested in your comments about Pinker’s refutation of Monckton”.
You said you would listen to the video.
I will wait to hear what you have to say.

quanda: If you can't see yet, that the greenhouse gases, global warming, then ETS schemes and gases will stop climate change is wrong.
Very wrong, scientifically and driven by the CCT markets. CO2 is a small part of greenhouse gas. 95% is water vapour/clouds. Of course
if you take water vapour out of the equation, sure, Carbon dioxide is
the biggest gas.

Clouds with it's small projection and scale of other gases, do keep
the planet warm when there is cloud cover. And cool also. How are
clouds formed. Sub atomic (cosmic) particles bombard the earth all the time and when they meet up with water or vapour molecules they bind and make clouds. However solar activity deflects cosmic particles, hence fewer clouds are formed, as this is also governed by what part of the planet is angled at the time.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases, keeps this planet from cooling. Plus
the action of ocean currents, moon effected tidal differences, and jet streams. Plus volcanic eruptions, terrestrial and sub ocean or sea.

Now if we can't effect the climate (rather than cut down pollution and landscape devastation) why tax CO2 emissions? Whether we cut them out completely or not, it won't compensate or prevent any major
climate change be it warmer or worse colder?

Bunny

Oh please, stop regurgitating your ignorance about climate science!

Ok, debate what we are going to do about climate change, when and by whom – I’ll be all ears – we may even agree on some things :)

But, may I respectfully suggest you stop impugning experts in their respective fields that they’re dumb-sh!ts and they haven’t a clue about what they’re talking about.

In the absence of that, why don't you tell us all where Professor Pinker has made a mistake and got it wrong about Monckton's climate sensitivity equation?

Better still, write a letter to APS - you too can be published like the Lord Chris himself.

By the way, it’s qanda, as in Q&A.

qanda sorry - I kept thinking 'in a quandary' that I have from 20 years study in the field of climate and the effect it has on human evolution, agricultural science and yes I do have a degree in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, that incorporated units to do with the natural environment, the climate (science) and basic stuff, like CO2, H20, N, P, K, NCO, C, SO2, CFC's, Methane, Carbon sequestration, photosynthesis, pollution, tree clearance, damming major river systems, you name it. And paleaobotany. PLUS tertiary Organic Agricultural certification and now studying for my Diploma in Organic Agriculture. Your climate change defensiveness won't work on me.

So go peel a grape and apply for a scientific research grant, on
'How the skins of grapes toughen due to climate change' bet you will
get it. Mind you leave out climate change angle and you won't!

Lord Monckton has just answered why he became involved in this climate change scam! Google it. The Science is wrong and fraudulently contrived, John Coleman has been saying it for years.
As soon as the Al Gorian stuff came activated I knew from my
science I had learned at advanced level at University, he was barking up the wrong tree! I died when he got the Academy Award and then the
Nobel Peace prize with the UN IPCC. I smelt a rat and now am relieved
the true science is getting an airing (excuse the pun) and without
Lord Monckton and others, maybe it wouldn't have. I live in a University Science city full of academics and all of them are agreeing with my ideology. (Well some taught me).

The Climate Change theory, UN IPCC and Al Gore hypothesis, is based
on corrupted data and there to substantiate grants into climate change and finances or investments in Carbon Trading Credits. (2 billion I believe).

Don't call me ignorant, I am a very well qualified person in multi-disciplines, but also an environmentalist. In fact I wonder what
the hidden agenda's of you and those that persist in calling people
(like 31000 scientists sueing Al Gore) heretics and deniers.