Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010, part 1 of 3

[Redfingers]

Lord Monckton lol you fucking sheeple have the audacity to call this pretentious bugeyed British fuck "Lord Monckton" like you're serfs and the last 250 years of independence and the Revolutionary War never happened.

Have some self respect. He's not "Lord Monckton," he's just Monckton.

[ChristopherMonckton5]

Monckton is leading the fight in stopping the carbon gangsters

[tootoo012]

ohhhhhhhh america.... america...

[singring76]

This is incredible...Monckton first critisizes multiple linear regression on one data set - and then proceeds to use multiple linear regression on one data set to make his own point! What a tool.

[iramining]

@singring76 hes doing it to show the broken way the gw siance is used

[TheSaltyAdmiral]

/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

[LordMonckton78]

He is leading the fight against the carbon tax mafia.

[dontbro]

LOL...

Still deciding whether this or Borat is Cohen's best character.

AMERICANS ARE SO GULLIBLE LOLZ

[moontang]

"Lord Christopher Monkton" is Sacha Baron Cohen. AKA Borat, Ali G, and Bruno.

It's all a troll.

[BlazeZubark]

@moontang You're an idiot

[DissorderedArray]

Sorry, I missed your link to Bernier. Although in response to that his paper is based purely on in-silico modelling, and is not an instrumental analysis of gas levels. Models are certainly useful, but one can dispute their accuracy also, as one might when observing long term weather predictions.

I'm afraid I am not convinced either way by the current level of data about the relevance of CO2 levels or concentration deltas.

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray I'm tempted to ask what qualifications you have to over-rule R.A.Bernier's findings. But don't bother. Your Fabian tactics have convinced me you are not a serious person to discuss such matters. The 20x CO2 levels 550 mya is a big problem for alarmists who claim that the earth will cook like a roast chicken. Positive feedback is dead as a hypothesis. I can understand people being "luke warmers" but the alarmist belief in positive feedback is absurd...

[DissorderedArray]

Don't misunderstand, I agree with you that alarmist scenarios are probably highly unlikely, but I just think there is too little data and too little understanding to make accurate predictions either way.

And I don't over-rule Bernier's findings, but one must keep in mind that FE simulations aren't perfect, and that his paper is in-silico only and that his simulations use input data which would have had large error margins.

People always think science is clear cut and black and white. It's not.

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray Fair enough... I have attacked the surface temp station data (with regard to its accuracy) and the practice of "homogenizing" data before it is used to crunch the numbers. So I understand the need to question methodologies. With regard to Bernier even if the real number is 5x CO2 pre-industrial, it would still turn the AGW models upside down.

[DissorderedArray]

BTW just because I believe human activity is causing climate change doesn't mean I disagree with Monckton when he states that there is anything we can do about it. Market forces, consumerism and development in non western countries means there is no possibility of reducing CO2 output while there is oil or coal still in the ground.

Modern climatology is not sufficiently advanced enough to fully model the environmental effects, therefore it is hard to make any predictions about the future climate.

[knightschwartz]

crazy eyes

[mlawren7]

Can anyone point me to a seminal article that argues that human-induced CO2 levels will cause climate change? It's a serious question, because I've been following this argument for five years now and not one climatologist has mentioned a single author, study or paper that I can refer to.

[BomaBoi]

@mlawren7 I guess you might be able to find "said article" (if there even is one) on the IPCC (inter-governmental pannel on climate change) website.. That is the main organization comprised of approximately 200 scientists and 1300 workers who say that global warming will kill us all.. Goodluck, and PLEASE let me know if you find anything at all substantial.

[DissorderedArray]

@mlawren7 "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Svante Arrhenius. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.

It is the first quantitative analysis of the greenhouse effect wrt. carbon dioxide. Arrhenius's (*the* Arrhenius, btw) later work makes direct inference between contemporary fossil fuel use and the greenhouse effect.

Many more papers have been published since 1896, see ipcc.ch

[mlawren7]

@DissorderedArray I imagine many more papers have been published since 1896, but I was after the 'seminal' paper as is seminal to the argument, not the 'original' paper on the subject. Thanks for the history lesson though.

[DissorderedArray]

@mlawren7 The problem is it's cumulative. There isn't so much one seminal paper that covers all effects in the entire environment, rather tens of thousands of papers covering small areas, which taken together over time form the basis of modern theories, such as in reviews like the IPCC report, which you can find online at their website.

As such the 'seminal' paper you seek is the one that 'inseminated' the science behind climate change theories and science, which is the paper I directed you to.

[mlawren7]

@DissorderedArray Sounds like paper mache to me. I would just expect there to be a detailed, fully referenced overview of the argument, peer-reviewed, probably co-authored by many people, that is widely read and referenced within climate-science academic community, widely read by undergraduates, that is at least a few years old, but no older than about 1990.

[TheSWTORMMO]

- "Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”

Quoted from Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

[TankUni]

@TheSWTORMMO

As a fellow New Zealander, I can tell you Bob Carter is a national embarassment. He's not a climatologist but a geologist (and what is it about geologists? Particularly retired ex-mining industry geologists) who makes speaking tours funded by Australian and American thinktanks. He writes newspaper articles and gives talks but is not published in the scientific literature.

[OtagoMark]

@TankUni "Fellow New Zealander" ?? as a fellow New Zealander I can tell you you're full of shit.

And he has published in the scientific literature....and also to do with climate specifically. And before you ask me for proof or citations etc... take a minute to actually research stuff before making such Bogus claims.

[TankUni]

@OtagoMark

Wow. Nice. Hello to you too.

However you're right - he has been published in the sci-lit but mainly in the area of stratigraphy - rock layering. So you're right to point out my error but the fact remains he does not publish peer reviewed papers about climate change in the sci-lit and he is not a regarded as a credible source on climate change.

[OtagoMark]

@TankUni Yes he has published on climate change... I don't know what you think peer review is but not all paper are accepted for peer review.. they can be rejected...and there is evidence for bias with regards to climate change

[nlpjohn]

@TankUni 500 million years ago CO2 levels were 20x our pre-Industrial CO2 levels. Why was there NOT a run away greenhouse effect like the AGW hypothesis claims will happen?

[DissorderedArray]

@nlpjohn 500mya O2 levels were one tenth of what they are today and there was essentially no land based life, flora or fauna.

I believe this invalidates it as a realistic parallel to the modern world for estimating modern climate effects.

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray Since when has O2 a greenhouse gas? Pay attention. The topic is greenhouse gases (GHG). CO2 levels back then were 20x higher than our preindustrial CO2 levels. Explain why positive feedback did NOT kick in and cook the planet like it was a roast chicken... This should be an easy question for you. After all AGW is "settled science". Yes?

[DissorderedArray]

@nlpjohn I clearly made no reference to O2 as a greenhouse gas, and was obviously alluding to the fact that the Earth's environment was too different half a billion years ago to accurately extrapolate to today's climate. The data on atmospheric gas levels beyond ~30kya is based on indirect evidence, and cannot be used to make accurate assumptions about the modern climate. The sun was also 10% dimmer, and much of the Earth covered in ice at various points. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray Let's see. You introduce another hypothesis that the sun was 10% dimmer but you also claim this data can NOT be relied upon because it is based on "indirect evidence". Then you ask me to believe the physics of GHG and heat are different from the physics of GHG and heat today. Can you see your own inconsistencies? And a 10% dimmer sun invalidates positive feedback of CO2 levels that are 20x higher? Gee...this "settled" science is a bit complicated...

[DissorderedArray]

@nlpjohnYou are being deliberately obtuse. A 10% dimmer sun is based on the established science of astrophysics. Atmospheric data beyond 30,000 years is based not on direct ice core measurements, but less direct measurements of isotope ratios and rock weathering and may be inaccurate to a very high degree. You might note that currently O2 constitutes 20% and CO2 0.036%. If O2 levels 500mya were less than 2% and CO2 was 0.72% it follows that there is no direct extrapolation to the modern climate.

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray More O2 red herrings again? Why introduce non-GHG variables to the discussion? The topic is AGW and the relevant variables are CO2 and heat. And you dispute science's measurement of the 20x CO2 levels? Then kindly give me the "correct" number with the HARD evidence to support your case. Or concede the point that science has approx the correct number. And you dodged my question about whether a 10% dimmer sun invalidating positive feedback...

[DissorderedArray]

You seem to assume that the atmosphere is simple and that there exist no dynamics between the atmospheric gasses and the environment or the biosphere. This assumption is spurious.

I believe the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim of 20x CO2. You will find that the relevant papers use indirect measurement methods, and that they specify larger error margins than direct measurement.

The sun being 10% neither validates nor invalidates +ve feedback, but it remains an important factor

[nlpjohn]

@DissorderedArray So you concede there are papers that use INDIRECT methods to substantiate 20x CO2 levels but deny the accuracy of the 20x number. By conceding these papers exist, you acknowledge I have evidence to support the 20x number. So what is the REAL CO2 number? Perhaps you will cherry-pick a number in the the lower end of the margin of error rather than the upper. That would be fine with me. Kindly provide your alleged CO2 number if it is not 20x pre-industrial.

[DissorderedArray]

@nlpjohn I have repeatedly stated that indirect methods of testing were used, and I do no 'denying', I am simply pointing out that significant error margins exist with such measurement techniques. Nor do I concede that such papers exist, I simply point out that papers published wrt prehistoric CO2 levels use indirect measurement techniques. The burden of proof remains with you no matter how much you try to employ obtuse sophistry to win an 'argument' that only exists in your head.

[nlpjohn]

R.A. Bernier 2001

I now ask YOU to give YOUR CO2 levels for this time period. If you wish to use figures on the lower margins of error...then that is fine with me. And with all respect, please cease your Fabian tactics. The extraordinary high CO2 levels from these time periods indicates that positive feedback is garbage and ergo the runaway greenhouse effect from CO2 is garbage.

[DissorderedArray]

Since the world is not black and white it is not realistic to seek simplistic answers about dynamic and multivariate systems. I am pointing out that one must be cautious about drawing a conclusion from data that may have a *significant* level of inaccuracy. Your unsubstantiated data and conclusion does not rule out +ve feedback from sudden changes in CO2 levels, nor the effects of oxygen using biosystems, which were far less prevalent 500mya. You also discount all other atmospheric dynamics.

[TheSWTORMMO]

This should clear some things up for you - the source is linked at the bottom in the second post. “The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

[TheSWTORMMO]

I'm not confused. The IPCC looks at peer reviewed science selectively, and was intentionally caught fudging the data purposefully in their reports. Whether you believe in one side or the other, the fact that the IPCC was caught doing this totally undermines a lot of what they say. You're pointing to peer reviewed science disclaiming what I'm saying, but I've personally read peer reviewed science and have looked at data from the University of Illinois pointing to the contrary.

[Sidewinder747]

As an American I must apologize to Christopher Monckton for the crass idiot Blumenauer. His attack to the person, rather than the argument, is just a typical leftist tactic of which we are all becoming weary. The good news is, the citizens are catching on to these socialist and are beginning to vote them out.

[TankUni]

He's popular because the Republicans and business interests consider AGW a fundamental threat to business as usual - and they're right, it is.

Climatologists who don't subscribe to the theory of AGW are thin on the ground so they have to make do with people with people like Monckton - an eccentric dabbler in the sciences with a narcissistic personality.

[TheSWTORMMO]

@TankUni You really are ignorant aren't you. Look at the peer reviewed scientific analyses and observations. Any objective, clear thinking person would conclude that anthropogenic global warming is a ridiculous hypothesis.

[TankUni]

@TheSWTORMMO

WTF? If you look at the peer reviewed scientific analyses and observations they are in 180 degrees to your statement. Monckton is a showman and should be taken as such. Burning fossil fuels in the degree that we have in the last 150 yrs is increasing atomspheric CO2 precipitously and causing an energy imbalance. Sorry if that disagrees with your ideology or you see it as an attack on American values but physics doesn't give a f*ck.

[TheSWTORMMO]

@TankUni Actually burning fossil fuels contributes to such an insignificant amount of global temperature increases it's not even a mentionable event. Keep citing non peer reviewed journals by the IPCC which have proven to falsely publish elements that are falsified. The fact alone that most politicians around the world are trying to do something about it by bringing more government into it shows how corrupt the system is. Even if global warming was the case, free-markets are the best solution.

[TankUni]

@TheSWTORMMO

You're confused. The IPCC is all about peer reviewed science. Further, a significant rise is detectable in global average temps particularly for the last fifty years - it's a cumulative thing and it has serious implications - particularly in terms of sea level rise and food production. As for what politicians are doing or whether free market solutions are best, maybe they are - but again, the physics of the situation doesn't give a f*ck.

[TheSWTORMMO]

@TankUni There's been thousands of publicized peer review journals totally discrediting the science behind anthropogenic climate change, so for you to outright say the physics of the situation is set in stone is extremely ignorant. Discoveries in the last several years that have been peer reviewed have forced many scientists to conclude that made global warming is simply not the case. Peer reviewed journals published in the Journal of Geophysical Research discredit everything the IPCC has said.

[TankUni]

@TheSWTORMMO

Just for sh*ts and giggles I went to the American Geophysical Union webpage (who produce the journal mentioned) . Although much was behind a paywall, they do have a position statement on climate change which includes; ...'are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.'

So even the AGU think you're talking sh*t.

[Zeeeeek]

Monckton, where is the hump?

[jpkfox]

I am against human made global warming. But I did check statistically the statement he makes at 2:51 that "all 3 periods have trend lines which are parallel" - so the growth is same. I did the regressianalysis calculations and period 1909-1940 has slope 1.69 and period 1971-2010 has slope 2.47. So last period seems to have bigger/deeper angle. Is this significant difference, that is another question.

[MrColina999]

A diploma in journalism. Yeah that's his main qualification. Lord Monckton - Cambridge educated with classics. Which means logic, mathematics.

He dislikes fat cats and corporations. The American congress and British parliament are intertwined with the media, finance, politics, bankers, large corporations, fat cat directors - the rich.

[87solarsky]

If american congress is THAT DUMB, that country should go down to the dogs a quick as possible!

[87solarsky]

This Blumenauer Guy is complete idiot and should be thrown away

[fairman1952]

Hmmmm. If global climate change is manmade then the last ice age ended because the cave men drove too many cars and used too much coal in their power plants. Makes sense to me. Global warming IDIOTS!!!!!! Not one complete brain between ALL of them. Ever hear of "sunspots"....weird how nature is greater than mankind.

[LukeShoveller]

Here's even more pedantry, the guy in the silly bow-tie uses the prefix 'Mr' for Lord Monckton (Or Mockton, as he so wittily says), which is again, just wrong. Who is this 'Mr Mockton' person?

[LordVigeous666999]

In america we don't respect titles of nobility

Unless you're a US congress man/woman, then you demand everyone use your title cause you "worked hard for it"

[87solarsky]

@LordVigeous666999 If american congress is THAT DUMB, that country should go down to the dogs a quick as possible!

[LordVigeous666999]

they are that dumb

Or they are brilliant, and just act dumb

[87solarsky]

@LordVigeous666999 In the end evil ALWAYS equals dumb. Brilliance is an illusion, if falsly attributed to such morons...

[LordVigeous666999]

I don't know if dumb ALWAYs equals evil.....

But I understand what you're getting at

[87solarsky]

@LordVigeous666999 I said evil equals dumb, not otherwise, though dumbness doesn't excuse for evilness...

[LtSurge659]

Definitely the land of illusions... the sooner everyone realizes the truth of the matter as Lord Monckton courageously speaks of, the sooner we can kick out the dunderheads that continue to ravage our legislation with illegitimate laws whose strings are pulled by the "elite" of this world.

@LordVigeous666999

It is unwise to assume someone of Lord Monckton's caliber hasn't "worked hard" for his title.

[LordVigeous666999]

he didn't work for the title

He may have worked for my respect, but not the title

The title was given at birth, what did he do during the 9 months he was in the womb to deserve it?

Not nothing, thats what.

[LukeShoveller]

Here's some top-class pedantry;

It's odd how these types repeatedly name peers incorrectly. It's not Lord Christopher Monckton, he is Lord Monckton. The former is just incorrect.

[jacobbengali1]

The guy with the bow tie should be cannibalised, what a fucking queer!

[junglemike72]

Global Warming is a proven Hoax but we live in the land of illusions now.

[RomeoMD25]

Obama wont bite the hand that feeds? him...and by "the hand" i mean the bankers

What do you think? Will Goldman Sachs and other banks involved in carbon offset trade (they already have an OTC future market set up for this) be able to impose this global tax, even if AGW has been proved to be a fraud?

[Entropy56]

OMG! The last guy doesn't know "Monckton" is not "Mockton". He tried to slam Lord Monckton but made himself out to be a jackass.

[utesonline]

Monckton points out the facts and dick head Earl says but where are the facts and then proceeds to make fun of the Lords name when he should be apologising for that horrible tie…

[stuanemma]

PMSL Earl Blumenauer suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?? Or truely evil? Anyone know of him?

[GregoriusRexx]

HAAAHAHAHAHAHA Oh Monckton. I thought he was just a nut, but he's totally owned these rude argumentum-ad-hominem Yank cretins.

A man with a British private school education, and they think they can INTIMIDATE him? Poor stupid Yanks

[PencilsAreAwesome]

Apologies, he's an embarrassment to the House of Representatives.

[PencilsAreAwesome]

Earl Blumenauer is an embarrassment to the United States Senate.

An expert testifies before his committee and he intentionally mispronounces his name, "MoNckton" as "MocKton", then says the expert is "appropriate named".

What a shameful breach of decorum.

[ihatemexico]

Man Made Global warming = bullshit

[TheKickerboy99]

I don't suppose you are talking about Monckton, but the sack of shit congressman that can only attack his name, as he has no answer to Monckton pointing out the lies being told to the public by the UN. It is not arrogance, just the truth.

[StunnedByStupidity]

narcissistic personality disorder:

* Has a grandiose sense of self-importance * Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance * Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) * Requires excessive admiration

[StunnedByStupidity]

* Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations * Is interpersonally exploitative * Lacks empathy * Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her * Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

He needs at least 5 to be a narcissist . I am even apt to believe he is on the wrong side of the psychopath scale as well - his arrogance is jawdropping

[EurocratsComeNotHere]

Psychopath..,