Software error found, by Lord Christopher and science team that dis-proves Global Warming,

Notable scientist and Climate Change investigator, Lord Christopher Monckton, says they have "Breaking News."

He, and his team, found an error in the software of the scientific weather model, that was used to calculate the mathematics of the Global Warming results. As it turns out, the removal of this error...removes the Global Warming threat. So, are we going to all get out of our bunkers now, and get back to work...or is the media going to just ignore blatant proof, that can now be provided?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

...or is the media going to just ignore blatant proof, that can now be provided?

They could just discredit him like they have been

Being a “Snake Oil Salesman” Who Actually Sells the Equivalent of Snake Oil
Shady Business Dealings
Inflating His Résumé
Deflating Others’ Résumés
Misrepresenting Scientific Literature
Making Up Fake Data
Abusing Scientific Equations
Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him
Being a Publicity Hound
Making Up Crazy Conspiracy Theories
Butchering History
Being the Incarnation of Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies
Being an All-Purpose Extremist
He Can Dish it Out, But Can’t Take It
Going Ape

bbickmore.wordpress.com...

Here's another video for those interested

Major Math Errors Discovered: CO2 Not Significant Driver of Global Warming

THE software of the scientific weather model? The only one?

Also, I will just leave this here:

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
So, are we going to all get out of our bunkers now, and get back to work...or is the media going to just ignore blatant proof, that can now be provided?

Can you please explain this blatant proof? I'm not necessarily doubting what Christopher Walter Monckton is saying by dismissing him out-of-hand, but I'm not ready to necessarily believe him either without a clear understanding of his evidence, and this video does not provide me with that clear understanding.

So I was hoping you might add your explanation of his evidence, which might be helpful.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

I don't know man. The source is WordPress. I have one of those pages myself, and can say anything I want, true or not.

Sounds a lot like "Hide The Decline".


Former US Presidents Explain Climategate

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
THE software of the scientific weather model? The only one?

Also, I will just leave this here:

www.skepticalscience.com...

That website is from SkepticalScience, of course they are going to crap on anyone. I could just as well post links from Google that favor him.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: gmoneystunt

I don't know man. The source is WordPress. I have one of those pages myself, and can say anything I want, true or not.

I understand but that was only one example. There are lots of links discrediting him.

21 climate scientists who variously conclude that Monckton's assertions are "very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics"

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
So, are we going to all get out of our bunkers now, and get back to work...or is the media going to just ignore blatant proof, that can now be provided?

Can you please explain this blatant proof? I'm not necessarily doubting what Christopher Walter Monckton is saying by dismissing him out-of-hand, but I'm not ready to necessarily believe him either without a clear understanding of his evidence, and this video does not provide me with that clear understanding.

So I was hoping you might add your explanation of his evidence, which might be helpful.

Here is the entire manual of their findings, complete with graphs and comparisons. You'll have to read it. It is science you know. Not something that you can fit in a nutshell.
Climate Change Manual/Findings of CG errors

The way the government agencies ran with this "threat" in the beginning with all the fear mongering, and the call for carbon taxes and expansion of government on massive scales to combat the problem, which was all snake oil itself, and they are already so completely corrupt in every way a human being can be corrupt, so my prediction is that some of the most extreme elements of the global warming AKA climate mongering people will ignore this "evidence" regardless if it is true or not.
According to this guy in the video it does sound like it is true, but how to suddenly disregard all that brainwashing and propaganda everyone has been fed for over 8 years if it really is true?

Global warming was always just an Idea.

The Earth has always endured, and no one in the old days would have believed this were true if it had been presented. People are more technically advanced, and yet without the intelligence in terms of their ability to condense commonality amongst their senses, into something comprehensive and understood on intelligent levels.

its really hard to think scientist dont think everything has a knock on effect.
why dont they simply recreate a smaller scale model of the earth's environment then release as much pollution as we do in a controlled environment.

then post the results, have them peer reviewed and take it from there.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
its really hard to think scientist dont think everything has a knock on effect.
why dont they simply recreate a smaller scale model of the earth's environment then release as much pollution as we do in a controlled environment.

then post the results, have them peer reviewed and take it from there.

Yeah , and let it go back 1000s of years instead f back to the 1920s . With data obtained by real scientists from the real sciences....Of course they cant. It would negate artificial climate change and show that climate change is perfectly normal. It IS called climate (weather patterns) for a reason. Not Gore's reason though

He, and his team, found an error ...

Errors are not Climate ...

Did you take a look at his book?


All he speaks about is the CO2-emission and his problem with acknowledging that even a trace-molecule like this could have a major impact.

This is like "I disprove nuclear fusion because there is only ssuuuuuuuch a small amount of U235 in comparison to U238!" - while this aspect of reality is real, its implications seem to have been lost to the author.

I'd say the more pertinent question now is, who 'introduced' the software error, and now the 'Anthropogenic global warming' is shown to be a bucket of nuts, are the multi-trillions of £/$ paid to trade 'carbon credits' and all the rest of the MASSIVE money making surrounding this scam, going to be refunded...with interest?

It's man made all right...but not in the way they shoved it down our throats.

Here we go again ONE FRICKING PERSON is lauded on ATS as the expert that proves global warming is a myth as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of scientists working worldwide on this. Oh yeah forgot to say ONE PERSON WHO IS A UKIP POLITICIAN not a fricking scientist....I mean DUH! how dumb do you have to be to believe the BS that he spouts. FFS

If this person with his background was talking on any subject except GW he would be annihilated here on ATS. Or doesn't that FFS obvious point rattle any brain cells round here......Jesus H christ. Just goes to show how denial dumbs down doesn't it.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
Notable scientist and Climate Change investigator, Lord Christopher Monckton, says they have "Breaking News."

I have to give him credit for all the "ifs" he put in his statements:

"IF our paper passes peer review and gets published...." and
"IF the published paper is then reviewed by the scientific community and not found to have any major errors..."

Then the climate scare is over, he says. Those are big "if"s, especially considering his reputation.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

He is not "a frickin person"... He had a team of professors working with him who found the error.

So do all climate scientists use the same software? That seems unlikely to me.
Do all versions of climate research software have the same error? That also seems unlikely to me.
Just asking...