@potholer54 This was a while ago, but I THINK I was referring to the stuff following the highlighted text and not the audio comment - it seems like the argument in his response was more the "Temperature first, then CO2" part, and I'm guessing I thought that that statement deserved some reference (though I'm fairly sure you addressed the issues that raises in an older video). At the time, it probably seemed like an unfair omission, though looking at it now I'm not so sure.
@KidMeatball water aides in snow development, thats y buffalo gets hammered yearly. i have no clue where u get ur info or what point youre trying to make, sorry
ha! i was just reading the page on wuwt to see for myself...i should stay away from comment sections on blogs with as much conviction as i should stay away from comments sections for the herald sun. vile vortexes of egos and lies that always draw me in.
but as i had nothing else to do this afternoon, it was time not wasted. cheers.
When Monckton publishes his ideas in a peer-reviewed climate or geophysical journal, then I'll take any of the crap he has to say seriously. Same goes for all of you deniers.
Until then - STFU and stop clogging up the internet!
When Monckton publishes his ideas in a peer-reviewed climate or geophysical journal, then I'll take any of the crap he has to say seriously. Same goes for all of you deniers.
Until then - STFU and stop clogging up the internet!
Can we have a QQOQQ award for people like Llamehtdos2 and Bernadotte01? Or indeed Monckton himself? I know that they aren't creationists (at least not obviously so), but they've all posed simple questions while having absolute confidence that they have no answers-- all the while they have very simple (and easily found) answers. That's, like, the essence of the QQOQQ award.
@atheistcommonsense Cypress Mountain shipped in snow for the olympics. Its proximity to the water and relatively low elevation make it common for snow to be fleeting in the best of years. The winter of 2010 was especially mild leading up to the olympics and became milder still for the duration of the competition.
Whistler had no trouble with snow for the alpine events.
Ah potholer, you didn't know this advanced ninja rebuttal technique: you concede every single of your points was wrong, then quickly change sides and pretend you were right all along.
Caution: it only works when the audience have very short attention spans.
The amount of work that must go into this is incredible. It must feel like such a waste of time to pore over everything this fool has ever done just to rebutt him.
Monckton destroys your twisted garbage at WUWTm end off! You have not got the intellectual ability to get within a mile of him. Instead of producing and twisting, do a stand up face to face debate with him, record it, post it here. Scared? You bloody should be!
@Llamehtdos2 =Monckton destroys your twisted garbage at WUWTm end off!= Sadly, Monckton just repeats his claims and doesn't address any of the evidence I produced -- mostly from his own misread sources. I would love to have a debate with him, and am trying to do just that. Please urge Anthony Watts on WUWT to allow me equal space for a reply. I would urge Monckton to respond to the evidence, and will happily give him space on this channel also. Let's see if he dares.
@potholer54 This could be just my bias stemming from the titles on some of their articles and the comments on Monckton's response, but I wouldn't expect WUWT to be that helpful. Then again, I could wrong.
@potholer54 I would LOVE to see you debate Monckton - really love to see you make him eat his words - I hope it can be arranged - with a little luck that WUWT debate just stared might expand...
Where can we see the devastating effects of warming in the real world? Why did Arctic ice rebound in 2008 instead of precipitously declining through positive feedback? What happened to the permanent Aussie drought forecast by the doomsayers? Why is snow no longer a thing of the past, but a double-plus predictable feature of change-warming today? Why must we fund false prophets with our taxes?
I don't fund Monckton with my taxes. But my taxes fund false-prophet Flannery.
@Bernadotte01 Look at last summers Arctic ice extent
Who predicted that? I think you'll find it wasn't weather scientist. All I've looked at predicted violent swings in the weather not settling down at any point soon.
Australia's extreme drought followed by bad flooding perhaps.
@Bernadotte01 =Why is snow no longer a thing of the past, but a double-plus predictable feature of change-warming today?= Thanks for all the questions. Please message me and I'll be happy to answer, because even for a non-expert like me they're not too taxing. On the "snow a thing of the past" I have done a video on this misconception, so take a look. You'll be glad to know that snow will always be with us, despite rumors to the contrary.
@Bernadotte01 I live in Canada, Its January 16th and no snow yet. We've had flurries, but there is no snow on the ground. Everyday the temp. is above zero (celsius) which is not the norm, way above seasonal average. Green Christmas, no snow, higher temps, yeah its all hogwash.
I watched potholer54's great series on "Monckton Bunkum" and was shaking my head in disbelief. Monckton is a total joker. I think in some instances he is flat out being dishonest and in others he simply doesn't understand what he's reading. I have a science background and think it's reasonable to say without a science background it is difficult to understand scientific writing. He doesn't understand what he's reading and simply isn't qualified to give presentations on the subject.
@Tommy4216 Support UKIP? Not that I would ever support UKIP myself, but considering it is likely that every party has at least one idiot in a prominent position, I would say don't let the fact that Monckton is there make you reject UKIP. However, maybe you should write into UKIP and write that as a supporter, you think that Monckton is an idiot/fraud for these reasons etc and they should strongly reconsider his position there.
I am the only one beginning to suspect the Monckton is a satirist? The British Parliment even sent him a formal request to stop claiming to be a member of the house of Lords- and posted the letter on their website! His claims can be so outlandish that I am often left to conclude that he is a buffoon antagonising people for his own amusement. Any one else feel the same?
To answer both your questions, yes they can. The Cretaceous extinction was caused by a meteor impact injecting particulates into the atmosphere and cooling the earth, and the Permian is believed to have been caused by, amongst other things, volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian traps, which injected CO2 into the atmosphere and warmed the earth.
It makes me wonder why Maggie Thatcher would need a science adviser when she was a scientist herself at one point where she worked as a research chemist.
@ParanoidGallows Because scientists specialise in topics. You wouldn't see a gynecologist when you've got a problem with your ear. You wouldn't see an orthopedic surgeon if you wanted plastic surgery. In the same way, scientists specialise. A research chemist would know limited things outside of their field. If you posed difficult climatological questions to any old scientist they would likely have no idea how to answer them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
who cares if he was or wasn't thatcher's adviser, potholer's videos are all about upmanship. lord idiot monckton is far too easy a target. these videos are boring and there is little new to learn. unsubscribing right now, goodbye and enjoy the weather in australia.
@iglwy Actually this is a beautiful example of how debunking should be done. There's no harm in him taking a bit of pleasure from his utter destruction of Monckton. Monckton is very popular in the climate denial movement, especially in Australia, so Potholers videos are important.
@biggingeryeti go and watch "the real news" on you tube, you will learn something instead of wasting time on the old school british empire affectionados. both potholer and monckton will lead you to ruin. i would do something else in my retirement, like inform the australian public about john perkins. did you see the youtube film "truth the ex yugoslavia". potholer once worked for the bbc, it is because of people like him, just taking the money that we are now in this mess. enjoy your sunshine.
@iglwy =who cares if he was or wasn't thatcher's adviser= You're preaching to the choir. It is Monckton's supporters who are claiming he was Thatcher's science advisor. And they care very much, because it gives his scientific opinion some legitimacy. So I suggest you talk to them.
@potholer54 more like illegimitacy, a big disadvantage now, looking back to what has happened to the US and UK since the thatcher and reagan era. I've stopped subscribing and have less intention to talk to them, whoever they might be. you get bogged down in silly he said/ she said arguments instead of relaying information like co2 being 0.4% of the atmosphere (I've revved you up so let's see you rip).
@iglwy I don't see why you're blaming potholer for this. Lord Monckton was the one who decided to rebutt potholer's points with very poor form. Lord Monckton has a bunch of admirers of supporters. potholer is well within his rights to rebutt him with the same points and knowledge that is widely available. If it wasn't then potholer's videos wouldn't be accessible to laymen (like me). If he didn't do this Monckton's supporters would think Monckton was right (and I bet they still do).
@okihelena I think Mockton is wrong. The ony demonstrated "forcing" effect attributable to carbon dioxide is accelerated plant growth, an effect mediated by CO2-regulated genes.
I have seen that effect with my own eyes, and you can too! Google "A big tree grows in Brooklyn" and take note of the intentional failure of the scientists studying "pollution" effects to mention CO2 as the cause of accelerated growth. Cough!
My science knowledge compared to you is zero as this question may be one of the simplistic questions you get.Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal dinosaurs went extinct because of climate change,I know there are other theories but sticking with climate change isn't that well just normal?
@philosophicalreason =Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal= Yes, it certainly is. The Earth's climate has changed from a snowball to a hothouse and back again several times, depending on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. A high concentration of CO2 can bake it, and a low concentration of CO2 can freeze it. I don't know how this reassures us, however.
@potholer54 I have a vast ignorance of climatology and would l like to ask if the several cycles of cooling and warming over the history of the planet should be affected by us? Say, if the evidence shows warming due to non anthropological means shouldn't we just let it be? Or if it is due to us in any way what should be done?
@potholer54 Can there be reassurance?If say we all of a sudden figured out how to create a perfect pollution free society would it make any real difference in the way the earths "natural"climate works,keep in mind i am not a scientist.
@philosophicalreason If we completely stopped putting CO2 into the air today the planet would continue to warm another ~0.4C due to thermal inertia. After that we'd be at a new equilibrium temperature until natural processes pulled that CO2 back out of the air. That would likely take several hundred years.
The point is, we are essentially whacking the the climate system with a very big stick (CO2) and we do not know exactly how dramatically it's going to respond.
@potholer54 The biggest problem is that as is said in the video is that the sun is larger and hotter now than it ever has been due to its stellar evolution. Combine this with the removal of forest with simultaneous CO2 release and you might have some problems. The more energy the sun delivers to the surface of the earth the greater the amount of infrared being reflected back / trapped.
@philosophicalreason But...and it's a big BUT, you have to look at the timescale in which it is happening. In the past changes in climate took centuries to millions of years to occur. Enough time for life to adapt. Now, it's happening in decades, which for a lot of organisms is not enough time to adapt.
@DutchLiam84 I agree,see question above to potholer54 only example i can think of which may be totally irrelevant simply because i am not a scientist,but organism did adapt because at the same time dinosaurs where around so where mammals though smaller and they where underground then came above ground my guess is because they had less of a threat posed to them and where able to flourish unless i am wrong mammals where adapting during and up to the extinction of dinosaurs.
I don't mean to nitpick, but on the issue of CO2/climate temperature correlation, I think you analysis of Monckton's statements is a bit misleading. In his blog response, Monckton does admit to a correlation, but he claims that this is because CO2 increase following increase in temperature. Your analysis to his blog response ignores Monckton's point about the correlation.
@cldstrcrft He doesn't ignore it, he's just focusing on a different point. The point (as Potholer says in part 2 of this video) is that when one of Monckton's claims is debunked, he responds by replacing it with a new claim, hoping the debate over the new claim will bury his mistake. Thus Monckton goes from saying there isn't a correlation, to saying there is a correlation, but it's the wrong way around. Potholer has addressed this new claim in a previous video; also see this URL: sks . to / lag
@cldstrcrft =he claims that this is because CO2 increase following increase in temperature.= Monckton can claim anything he likes, and usually does. But he needs to cite a source. All I have done in my videos is check Monckton's sources and discover that in every case Monckton misrepresented his source or his source was non-expert hearsay. But before I tackle this new claim I would like Monckton to clarify whether there is a correlation or not. He claims both.
@potholer54 Replying to the author of the video, are you aware that correlation does not equate causality in any scientific paper. And how is peer review equal to audit, in any respect? Most peer review never conducts an inspection over the raw data anyway, so how does peer review equal audit?
@cldstrcrft "...CO2 increase following increase in temperature."
It really doesn't matter if CO2 is leading or lagging. The radiative properties of CO2 do not change when it's a feedback or a forcing. More CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to retain more heat.
I don't mean to self-promote, but I was hoping some of you might be interested in my video about Monckton, in which I summarise some of the less-well known of his ridiculous and false claims: /watch?v=Z0LTCjYv2kk Feedback appreciated. He really is a terrible fraud.
This is rather obvious propaganda. This author is attempting to discredit Monckton based on out of context quotes that have been carefully cherry picked.
@ClaudiusDenk If you want to show how he cherry-picked then go ahead - there is a link in the description of Monckton's response. Then you may restore the context which it was taken out of and we can see how Potholer is deceptive and manipulative.
It's hard to cherry-pick a contradiction without there actually being a contradiction. You give no reason whatsoever for thinking that the context is going to help Monckton's case in any way whatsoever.
@ClaudiusDenk you're funny. Monckton does a pretty good job of discrediting himself. even a basic understanding of climate science will reveal how ridiculous he is but please, go ahead and outline exactly where Potholer cherrypicked and put it in context for us all.
Note how Monckton touches his face twice in a row when claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are "doing fine". This is a body language signal for lying. It seems he doesn't even believe his own nonsense.I wonder what he's up to.
You would only ever use this meaning in science when saying "match" and I can't find the meaning you suggest your dictionary states (if it's really there).
Really sad how you will not concede on this matter because saying "remarkable correlation" and "match" are the same really is making you look like a complete fool.
"I gay this"
Well at least I know your literally a child from that statement.
@ANTICARBONTAX "Match a. To be exactly like; correspond exactly."
That is ONE definition of the word. Broaden you mind. Read further down into the definition of the word. My dictionary lists about 10 different definitions.
@robhoneycutt Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)- Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur
Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)(Paleooceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1044, 2003)- Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl
@ANTICARBONTAX This 1994 paper "Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period" is pretty early research and not very extensive but they also come to a similar conclusion that... "The available evidence suggests that the MWP was global in extent and not uniform climatically" In other words, "heterogeneous."
@ANTICARBONTAX And this paper... "Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea" actually shows warming and cooling in opposite sine from the standard MWP/LIA. They show the warmest SST around 800-500 BP and cooling around 900-1500 BP. Again, the MWP is heterogeneous.
@robhoneycutt "I **get** this..." Really Whats the Answer?????????? I will finish on a question that is relative to an answer you gave me (it takes 17years to show a trend) using the HadCRUT3 global data, what is the variation in the rate of warming from 1878 and 1910 that's 32years of temperature data. Since you understand this better than me you should have no problem.
@robhoneycutt Do you know how to read and work out basic temperature data? if so what's the answer? You don't know or you would have answered it already.
@robhoneycutt A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability(Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004)- P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz
Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period(Science, Vol. 288. no. 5474, pp. 2198 - 2202, 23 June 2000)- Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein
@ANTICARBONTAX Alright. Let's go through these. Your first paper: "A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere..." First off, 700 years doesn't go back far enough to even determine a MWP. The paper does not once mention the term MWP. The paper makes no mention of global aspects of warming. This is only a paper about regional temperature. The paper does not use the terms "heterogeneous" nor "homogeneous."
@ANTICARBONTAX You've clearly not read these papers. This one "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period" is about the HOLOCENE. The charts cover the past 20,000 years and they are too course to determine what years either the MWP (which they don't discuss) or the LIA (which they do) occur.
@robhoneycutt Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo
Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)- De'Er Zhang
@ANTICARBONTAX Now this is a very good paper... "Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand" I've read Ed Cook's papers before. He's an excellent researcher. But look: Similar to the NH, this SH expression of the MWP is not homogeneous in time. Rather, it is composed of two periods of generally above-average warmth, A.D. 1137–1177 and 1210–1260..." Catch that? NOT HOMOGENOUS.
@ANTICARBONTAX "Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China" is an interesting paper. They're going through ancient written Chinese records to try to determine changes in climate. Though not a definitive paper they state, In this way, a contradiction with the nominal time interval of the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 900-1300) may be partly resolved."
So, here we have a paper that suggests a MWP that roughly falls into the 900-1300 time frame. But let's read on...
@robhoneycutt Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, Pages 113-125, 6 July 2004)- K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller
@robhoneycutt I have heaps more but See how pointless that is? wow I can link articles that you can't read since you think most words in the English language/science mean the exact same thing lol, Just like you believe "Little correlation" means No correlation, "remarkable correlation" means Match, black means white, cat means dog, and pig means fly. haha seriously go back to school
Yes, I do see the pointlessness because you don't even know what you're posting. You've not read any of these papers. You only did some googling once I called you out as a liar for saying you had 10 papers that showed a globally homogenous MWP. And the papers do not make the claim that you seem to think they do.
@robhoneycutt No I didn't just Google them I had had them specifically for this reason for years but I'm not arguing with you anymore because it's completely pointless and obvious you don't understand this,
So what's the answer to my basic question because it seems your doing allot of squirming right now, you don't know how to read the data do you? If you do just answer the question now please!
@ANTICARBONTAX I'm not squirming. YOU are. I'm clearly pointing out to you where you've not even read the papers you're presenting.
Let me point out the statement in Ed Cook's paper again...
"Similar to the NH, this SH expression of the MWP is not homogeneous in time. Rather, it is composed of two periods of generally above-average warmth, A.D. 1137–1177 and 1210–1260..."
@ANTICARBONTAX This is really very simple to understand if you go and compare the GISP2 (Greenland) holocene temp record with the Vostok (Antarctica) holocene temp record. The two generally oscillate in opposite sign. They're called "anti-phase events." It shows how heat energy in the climate system moves around the planet. In contrast, today heat energy is building homogeneously around the planet.
@robhoneycutt So how are you going with that answer? I'm not getting pulled into your stupid arguments, If you can't even work out basic temperature data then it just proves your don't understand any of this, It's been over a day now, it's obvious you don't know the answer, Thanks for trying though. Better luck Next time.
@ANTICARBONTAX So, in other words you lied when you said you had 10 peer reviewed papers that proved the MWP was a homogenous event around the planet.
@robhoneycutt I thought I just did? tell me how the hypothetical example of a million papers stating gold is only found in china disproves 1 peer reviewed paper (not disproved) with evidence of gold being found in other countries. Unless disproved it can't, It's impossible! That 1 paper proves that gold is found all over the world just like the MWP Peer reviewed papers prove they found more evidence that the original papers didn't, I can provide them but you don't seem to understand this at all.
@robhoneycutt "Using your absolutist definition of the word "match" no two humans are a match."
It's not my definition it's the world's definition, Match is an absolute term correlation isn't I just proved that to you using your own made up definition of words and made you admit you are a match with an ape in your own words.
What I'm confused about is that apparently the earth does not radiate infrared anyway in the bands that CO2 is unique in absorbing. This seems to imply that an increase in CO2 will make no difference.
@Packgammon There is no research that suggests such a rapid increase in global temperature is going to be good. The most likely effect will be to turn vast areas of farmland into desert. Not a good thing with the world population headed toward 10B.
@robhoneycutt Well, obviously YOU are not reading any of the science, so how would you even know?
Since the 1970s, the long-term rate of global warming has been around 0.16C a decade but that slowed in the last 10 years to between 0.05C - 0.13C depending on which of the three major temperature record series are used.
Vicky Pope, head of climate science advice, said: 'The warming trend has decreased slightly. There's still a warming trend but it's not as rapid as it was before.
@ANTICARBONTAX Look, I've seen you out there commenting on climate for a long time. By now you SHOULD realize that 10 years is not statistically significant. The climate system is highly variable and it requires at least 17 years to achieve 95% confidence of any trend at all. Climate scientists EXPECT there to be 10 year periods of leveling off and then 10 year periods of warming that exceeds the trend. No one has ever said CO2 will march lockstep with temperature.
@robhoneycutt Now If co2 is the main driver of global warming as even Vicky pope stated then how did the worlds rate of warming decrease when the worlds co2 level has increased 5%world wide(25%manmade 10 year period) mostly due to China and India's economic expansion in the same period? Answer: IT CAN'T if co2 is the main driver then adding a HUGE amount of co2 "SHOULD" have massively increased the rate of warming but it didn't, it slowed down. CO2 GLOBAL WARMING FAIL.
@ANTICARBONTAX Today CO2 is likely responsible for about 75% of current warming. But again, no one ever says that CO2 and temp will go together lockstep. The climate is highly variable. The planet is gaining heat energy is a consistent way over time but it does NOT get expresses immediately as an increase in surface temperature.
You are fighting a losing battle anticarbon tax, and looking more foolish with every new post. Without a carbon tax we would not only drastically disadvantaging ourselves by removing the best way of initiating a market mechanism to demand renewable inovation, we would also cement our reliance on foreign oil which empowers petrodictatorship in the middleeast.
Quote below by PIERS CORBYN: over 30 years as a meteorologist, astrophysicist who has the HIGHEST long range weather predictions on the planet with over 90% worldwide , 95% on USA land this means he predicts weather (studying the Sun/solar winds/sun spots) from over a year away, e.g. he predicted the to the day the end of the Russian heat wave(permafrost refroze sorry Al Gore) and the Pakistan flood. Direct temperature is mainly the sun as it has always been.
@ANTICARBONTAX Hmmm.... Piers Corbyn, Piers Corbyn. You know what? I can't seem to find ANY published literature by Corbyn anywhere. I'd have to say he's NOT a climate researcher and is just another paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.
@robhoneycutt "Hmmm.... Piers Corbyn, Piers Corbyn. You know what? I can't seem to find ANY published literature by Corbyn anywhere. I'd have to say he's NOT a climate researcher and is just another paid shill for the fossil fuel industry."
Considering he has more experience of over 30years in climate research and has the highest correct % of weather prediction from over a year away, that makes him the highest in this field, so get your facts strait.
I don't really care if you believe this crap or not but you need to understand who really profits from all this and there worse that any oil industry, BANKS do first and foremost, DO you know that the banks in the UK since the carbon tax have made more profit than ever before while reducing 0% of emissions since the carbon tax there(abc news Australia) and ABC news has been pushed a carbon tax here basically gov sponsoredTV
@ANTICARBONTAX I thought folks like you were all about people making profits! If someone makes a profit by helping to get carbon use down then more power to them!
@robhoneycutt Ieven came here to listen to what he had to say but as soon as I saw at the start this dickhead having to flat out lie to prove a point I decided not to give it anymore of my time and didn't watch past the lie.
This whole "global warming" scam is funded by UN who is funded by the world bank which now receives 10% of all tax money, so basically a European BANK is now taxing us in Australia while reducing 0%emissions so I guess the banks won again Congratulations.
@ANTICARBONTAX Funded by the UN? The IPCC reports are just a consensus report! They are just reporting what the large numbers of complex published literature is saying. If you read any of the actual literature you see that, if anything, the IPCC is being overly conservative in their assessments.
@robhoneycutt"Come on, look at the crap diagram that he's pointing at. Have you never seen that website" Which Diagram because the one where lord Monkton states "there is LITTLE(not no which is vastly different to little) Correlation between co2 and the planets temp was made by to esteemed scientists using geologic samples of each time period to build a picture on what the atmosphere/temp was like in the past,I assume similar/same as carbon dating
@ANTICARBONTAX The diagram comes from Monte Heib a fossil industry shill who has never produced any actual research on climate. He take graphs from two separate papers and overlays them and claims there is little to no relationship between CO2 and temp. Once is from Scotese and the other from Berner. Problem is, if you READ the papers they don't make the claims that Hieb suggests. In fact they make the opposite claims.
@robhoneycutt "The diagram comes from Monte Heib a fossil industry shill who has never produced any actual research on climate" haha typical Religious fanatic every time an actual scientists stats that co2 isn't the main driver of Global Warming, you keep stating they must be paid off So just show me the proof that they received oil money and show me Proof Piers Corbyn received oil money or your entire argument becomes null/voided.
@ANTICARBONTAX The problem there is, you've not read Scotese or Berner. They do not state the conclusions that Heib is trying to present. They state the opposite.
@ANTICARBONTAX Being a fossil fuel industry shill does not require receiving money. Though the ones like Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels and others clearly do through their conservative think tank positions.
@robhoneycutt"Being a fossil fuel industry shill does not require receiving money" So no proof then haha exactly what I thought, No facts just more alarmist lies in order to discredit honest scientists who can't be paid off by grants. See when I say Al Gore has HUGE ties to Big Oil I can back those claims up (unlike you).
"That is NOT what he says" I used the ACTUAL quote from this video, what's wrong with you? Fanatical much?
@ANTICARBONTAX You have NOT used the actual quote from this video. I HAVE! Anyone else reading this can go to 4:50 and see who is telling the truth. I'm using his exact words. "Here we get a rather prodigious mismatch..."
@robhoneycutt YOU You have NOT used the actual quote from this video. I HAVE! Anyone else reading this can go to 4:50 and see who is telling the truth. I'm using his exact words. "Here we get a rather prodigious mismatch..."
OH really whats his full quote from 4:50 to 5:20 Show everyone how wrong I am, go on link all his quotes or are you such a coward you need to lie like pothead 54?
@robhoneycutt If you want me to believe this then just do what the Government and banks do, Pay me millions/billions of dollars in grants and I'll say whatever you want because just like all these other organisations fuck science I will just take the money and spray lies using only computer models which I will be the one feeding it all the info to make it do what I want.
This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green religion department' to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains fraud.
They selectively report part of 'weak' sceptics contributions which are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers' mantra.
They misrepresents the observed facts and choose 'straw-man' methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
@ANTICARBONTAX "AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers' mantra."
Hm, well then who are they and why haven't these people been able to convince every National Academy of Science on the planet to change their position statements on AGW?
OMG REALLY SO THEY TOOK THE MONEY TOO? lol you forgot to mention the esteemed NASA who was also convinced of "Global Warming" yeah it only took 6 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS of funding A YEAR by the government and they believed it so much they got caught (and sued) changing past temperature records to show a warming where there wasn't one. Wanna know why? CARBON TAX FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD like we had rammed through parliment here
They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal innuendo rather than discussing the issues - 'Smear or belittle the messenger if you don't like the message'
2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming 'exceptional' world temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud and 'improvements' on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the Climate Crisis industry are also fraud - with lipstick.
@ANTICARBONTAX Wrong again. In fact, Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be accurate by the fact that now there are at least 10 other global multi-proxy reconstructions that show virtually exactly the same thing. You can gripe all day long about whether Mann performed his work with the correct methods but when TEN groups get the same answer you have what is considered by any measure to be a ROBUST conclusion.
I'm Sorry but I have heard Monkton state for years Numerous times that a CO2 increase will increase the temp but he states that it's only very minor, he even uses a peer reviewed paper stating this numerous times, your flat out lying and even his quote you linked he stated "there is little correlation" HE DIDN"T SAY THERE IS NO CORROLATION, suggest you learn not to lie just to prove a point. I gave you benefit of the doubt as a sceptic but you're a flat out liar, you should would for FOX news.
@ANTICARBONTAX Are you nuts? Potholer clearly posts the VIDEO of Monckton saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years. Then he later states that there IS a clear correlation.
@robhoneycutt Monkton stated quite clear in the example in this video that "there is LITTLE correlation" NOT NO CORRELATION so I suggest you learn the difference, Plus he has stated at least 10 times in nearly every single debate and speech there is a correlation and it's 1 degree per doubling of co2 numerous times, so saying he believed there is NO correlation is a flat out LIE, as I even went back and checked old interviews he did over a year ago.
@ANTICARBONTAX Come on, look at the crap diagram that he's pointing at. Have you never seen that website? The author is conflating two completely separate diagrams, one that absolutely refutes the other. And Monckton is thumping it as proof that there's not a relationship between temp and CO2. You'd have to be utterly blind to not see it.
@SuperDrive45 I think you'll find he was a freelance journalist. Sorry, I can't reply to you again. You used the term "NWO" without irony, thus highlighting yourself as having the IQ of a boiled potato.
@SuperDrive45 I think you will find that at 13:15 Monckton is doing a "quite childish" impersonation of Justice Burton see "Monckton Bunkum Part 4 -- Quotes and misquotes" watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA at 01:58
@SuperDrive45 Ive seen some sad reaching by denialists - but implying potholer donned an upper class accent to pass himself off as Monckton is pretty desperate. Have you got conspiracy theories for the other 17 or so rebuttles were Monkton is clearly caught with his pants down? No? Thought not....
@SuperDrive45 He has said he was Thatcher's science advisor, which he never was. He gives links to the full monckton videos, so you can watch it for yourself. None of the sound bites are taken out of context. But since nothing I say will change your love for monckton, I'm done
@SuperDrive45 I know. In fact I said that in a prior comment. Since you didn't pick that up, I also assume you didn't pick up the fact that as a journalist he gives a source for every single claim he makes. Sources that come from scientists. Pay attention next time
NOBODY takes Mock-ton seriously. Yes - there are tons of sock puppet accounts online by a single denier or two. But, nobody takes this running joke "Lord" seriously.
I feel bad for his eyes. Might be a sign something isn't right with his brain. Maybe delusional since birth. Beating up and handicap isn't my forte'. Simply underlining their obvious inconsistency should be enough.
@arkivx1 "the ice caps have been shrinking since the end of the ICE AGE"
That is not correct. If you read any of the published literature you find that the planet has been in a slow natural orbitally forced cooling phase over the past 6000 years during which the ice sheets have grown. Now we are in a complete and abrupt reversal of that natural trend and are rapidly losing ice. We are expected to start seeing ice free summer conditions within the next ~10 years. See: Miller et al 2010
@arkivx1 And BTW, the planet has not seen ice free summers likely anytime during the holocene, and it's very likely it's been several million years since the Arctic has been ice free in the summer.
@arkivx1 Potholer has addressed some of the issues with Gore's movie in another video but the problem is that most of what Gore says is pretty consistent with the published literature.
NB. At around 15 minutes 15 seconds mark Monckton notes "warming at surface of Jupiter" - erm, Jupiter has no real surface - just a vast atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium gradually changing to a supercritical fluid "mantle" region then metallic hydrogen over perhaps some sort of core. At the cloudtops of Jove did he mean, maybe? (Minor nitpick compared to the rest of his howlers but still.)
@potholer54 This was a while ago, but I THINK I was referring to the stuff following the highlighted text and not the audio comment - it seems like the argument in his response was more the "Temperature first, then CO2" part, and I'm guessing I thought that that statement deserved some reference (though I'm fairly sure you addressed the issues that raises in an older video). At the time, it probably seemed like an unfair omission, though looking at it now I'm not so sure.
jonnosferatu 1 week ago
This video is a tour de force, thank you for putting in the work.
thefrockdoctrine 2 weeks ago
Keep em coming!!!!!!!!!
ShalomYal 2 weeks ago
@KidMeatball water aides in snow development, thats y buffalo gets hammered yearly. i have no clue where u get ur info or what point youre trying to make, sorry
atheistcommonsense 2 weeks ago
Monckton is a hack.. worse, an idiot/
Your videos make that clear. Thank you for making them!
winston2015 3 weeks ago 2
First class job, as usual, potholer54. Cheers.
TheMrSirCharles 3 weeks ago 3
ha! i was just reading the page on wuwt to see for myself...i should stay away from comment sections on blogs with as much conviction as i should stay away from comments sections for the herald sun. vile vortexes of egos and lies that always draw me in.
but as i had nothing else to do this afternoon, it was time not wasted. cheers.
BFSmash 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When Monckton publishes his ideas in a peer-reviewed climate or geophysical journal, then I'll take any of the crap he has to say seriously. Same goes for all of you deniers.
Until then - STFU and stop clogging up the internet!
mphello 1 month ago
When Monckton publishes his ideas in a peer-reviewed climate or geophysical journal, then I'll take any of the crap he has to say seriously. Same goes for all of you deniers.
Until then - STFU and stop clogging up the internet!
mphello 1 month ago
Geez,... get alife and dont buzz me about it.
JungleHyena 1 month ago
AGAINST SOPA PIPA !
JungleHyena 1 month ago
Can we have a QQOQQ award for people like Llamehtdos2 and Bernadotte01? Or indeed Monckton himself? I know that they aren't creationists (at least not obviously so), but they've all posed simple questions while having absolute confidence that they have no answers-- all the while they have very simple (and easily found) answers. That's, like, the essence of the QQOQQ award.
qdogg224 1 month ago
@qdogg224 By the way, Essence of QQOQQ-- Calvin Klein's worst idea ever,
qdogg224 1 month ago
@Bernadotte01 thats precisely why i post it, b/c the info is easy to find. PS the same whistler you mention, had to ship snow in for the olympics!!!
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense Cypress Mountain shipped in snow for the olympics. Its proximity to the water and relatively low elevation make it common for snow to be fleeting in the best of years. The winter of 2010 was especially mild leading up to the olympics and became milder still for the duration of the competition.
Whistler had no trouble with snow for the alpine events.
KidMeatball 3 weeks ago
@Bernadotte01 check southern ontario, kitchener area there aint shit moron. Usually knee deep!!! skeptic mainly means nutcase!!!
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Ah potholer, you didn't know this advanced ninja rebuttal technique: you concede every single of your points was wrong, then quickly change sides and pretend you were right all along.
Caution: it only works when the audience have very short attention spans.
MastermindX 1 month ago
The amount of work that must go into this is incredible. It must feel like such a waste of time to pore over everything this fool has ever done just to rebutt him.
valleyshrew 1 month ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
This has been flagged as spam show
Monckton destroys your twisted garbage at WUWTm end off! You have not got the intellectual ability to get within a mile of him. Instead of producing and twisting, do a stand up face to face debate with him, record it, post it here. Scared? You bloody should be!
Llamehtdos2 1 month ago
@Llamehtdos2
Oh please Monckton's response was as weak as his first one. Didn't you even watch the video?
cthulhu11111111 1 month ago
@Llamehtdos2 =Monckton destroys your twisted garbage at WUWTm end off!= Sadly, Monckton just repeats his claims and doesn't address any of the evidence I produced -- mostly from his own misread sources. I would love to have a debate with him, and am trying to do just that. Please urge Anthony Watts on WUWT to allow me equal space for a reply. I would urge Monckton to respond to the evidence, and will happily give him space on this channel also. Let's see if he dares.
potholer54 1 month ago 34
@potholer54 This could be just my bias stemming from the titles on some of their articles and the comments on Monckton's response, but I wouldn't expect WUWT to be that helpful. Then again, I could wrong.
TheIr0nMike 3 weeks ago
@potholer54 I would LOVE to see you debate Monckton - really love to see you make him eat his words - I hope it can be arranged - with a little luck that WUWT debate just stared might expand...
StunnedByStupidity 3 weeks ago
@Llamehtdos2 So, can you provide any arguments besides name-calling? Was any of the assessments made in the video not accurate?
MastermindX 1 month ago
@Llamehtdos2 You just got absolutely destroyed. Use your brain next time.
MrPianoJames 1 month ago
Creep
johnspencertv 1 month ago
Where can we see the devastating effects of warming in the real world? Why did Arctic ice rebound in 2008 instead of precipitously declining through positive feedback? What happened to the permanent Aussie drought forecast by the doomsayers? Why is snow no longer a thing of the past, but a double-plus predictable feature of change-warming today? Why must we fund false prophets with our taxes?
I don't fund Monckton with my taxes. But my taxes fund false-prophet Flannery.
Why must it so? :(
Bernadotte01 1 month ago
@Bernadotte01
arctic sea ice is in decline. Stop denying it.
cthulhu11111111 1 month ago
@cthulhu11111111
Stop denying that Arctic ice extend rebounded after 2007.
Stop denying the snow was predicted to be a thing of the past, that drought was predicted to be permanent in Australia. Stop defending false prophets.
Point to some of the devastating effects caused by warming, please.
Bernadotte01 1 month ago
@Bernadotte01 Look at last summers Arctic ice extent
Who predicted that? I think you'll find it wasn't weather scientist. All I've looked at predicted violent swings in the weather not settling down at any point soon.
Australia's extreme drought followed by bad flooding perhaps.
x42brown 1 month ago
@Bernadotte01 =Why is snow no longer a thing of the past, but a double-plus predictable feature of change-warming today?= Thanks for all the questions. Please message me and I'll be happy to answer, because even for a non-expert like me they're not too taxing. On the "snow a thing of the past" I have done a video on this misconception, so take a look. You'll be glad to know that snow will always be with us, despite rumors to the contrary.
potholer54 1 month ago 10
@Bernadotte01 I live in Canada, Its January 16th and no snow yet. We've had flurries, but there is no snow on the ground. Everyday the temp. is above zero (celsius) which is not the norm, way above seasonal average. Green Christmas, no snow, higher temps, yeah its all hogwash.
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense It is January 17th in Australia, 16th in Canada as I write. I just checked a map of snow cover in Canada.
Snow report, Canada, The Weather Network... shows at thick blanket of snow over most of Canada. So there is plenty of snow, not none.
The Whistler website claims 5.2 meters at this early point in the season.
Do you think people won't check? What does the word "skeptic" mean to you?
Bernadotte01 1 month ago
I watched potholer54's great series on "Monckton Bunkum" and was shaking my head in disbelief. Monckton is a total joker. I think in some instances he is flat out being dishonest and in others he simply doesn't understand what he's reading. I have a science background and think it's reasonable to say without a science background it is difficult to understand scientific writing. He doesn't understand what he's reading and simply isn't qualified to give presentations on the subject.
IMadeOfClay 1 month ago
@IMadeOfClay Ah, but Monckton is a master of SOUNDING like he knows everything.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
seeing as monckton is head of ukip's environment department do you think I should still support them?
Tommy4216 1 month ago
@Tommy4216 Support UKIP? Not that I would ever support UKIP myself, but considering it is likely that every party has at least one idiot in a prominent position, I would say don't let the fact that Monckton is there make you reject UKIP. However, maybe you should write into UKIP and write that as a supporter, you think that Monckton is an idiot/fraud for these reasons etc and they should strongly reconsider his position there.
okihelena 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am the only one beginning to suspect the Monckton is a satirist? The British Parliment even sent him a formal request to stop claiming to be a member of the house of Lords- and posted the letter on their website! His claims can be so outlandish that I am often left to conclude that he is a buffoon antagonising people for his own amusement. Any one else feel the same?
Macabremalifica 1 month ago
@Macabremalifica I think he's just up his own a***. Seriousy.
IMadeOfClay 1 month ago
Question unrelated to the video:
Were the greatest mass-extinctions triggered by meteor impacts that altered the climate?
Could there have been geological underground phenomena to produce equal effects (without the meteor impacts)?
7omnia7 1 month ago
@7omnia7
To answer both your questions, yes they can. The Cretaceous extinction was caused by a meteor impact injecting particulates into the atmosphere and cooling the earth, and the Permian is believed to have been caused by, amongst other things, volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian traps, which injected CO2 into the atmosphere and warmed the earth.
ZShogan 1 month ago
It makes me wonder why Maggie Thatcher would need a science adviser when she was a scientist herself at one point where she worked as a research chemist.
ParanoidGallows 1 month ago
@ParanoidGallows Because scientists specialise in topics. You wouldn't see a gynecologist when you've got a problem with your ear. You wouldn't see an orthopedic surgeon if you wanted plastic surgery. In the same way, scientists specialise. A research chemist would know limited things outside of their field. If you posed difficult climatological questions to any old scientist they would likely have no idea how to answer them.
okihelena 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
who cares if he was or wasn't thatcher's adviser, potholer's videos are all about upmanship. lord idiot monckton is far too easy a target. these videos are boring and there is little new to learn. unsubscribing right now, goodbye and enjoy the weather in australia.
iglwy 1 month ago
@iglwy Actually this is a beautiful example of how debunking should be done. There's no harm in him taking a bit of pleasure from his utter destruction of Monckton. Monckton is very popular in the climate denial movement, especially in Australia, so Potholers videos are important.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago 2
@biggingeryeti go and watch "the real news" on you tube, you will learn something instead of wasting time on the old school british empire affectionados. both potholer and monckton will lead you to ruin. i would do something else in my retirement, like inform the australian public about john perkins. did you see the youtube film "truth the ex yugoslavia". potholer once worked for the bbc, it is because of people like him, just taking the money that we are now in this mess. enjoy your sunshine.
iglwy 1 month ago
@iglwy =who cares if he was or wasn't thatcher's adviser= You're preaching to the choir. It is Monckton's supporters who are claiming he was Thatcher's science advisor. And they care very much, because it gives his scientific opinion some legitimacy. So I suggest you talk to them.
potholer54 1 month ago 32
@potholer54 more like illegimitacy, a big disadvantage now, looking back to what has happened to the US and UK since the thatcher and reagan era. I've stopped subscribing and have less intention to talk to them, whoever they might be. you get bogged down in silly he said/ she said arguments instead of relaying information like co2 being 0.4% of the atmosphere (I've revved you up so let's see you rip).
iglwy 1 month ago
@iglwy I don't see why you're blaming potholer for this. Lord Monckton was the one who decided to rebutt potholer's points with very poor form. Lord Monckton has a bunch of admirers of supporters. potholer is well within his rights to rebutt him with the same points and knowledge that is widely available. If it wasn't then potholer's videos wouldn't be accessible to laymen (like me). If he didn't do this Monckton's supporters would think Monckton was right (and I bet they still do).
okihelena 1 month ago
@okihelena I think Mockton is wrong. The ony demonstrated "forcing" effect attributable to carbon dioxide is accelerated plant growth, an effect mediated by CO2-regulated genes.
I have seen that effect with my own eyes, and you can too! Google "A big tree grows in Brooklyn" and take note of the intentional failure of the scientists studying "pollution" effects to mention CO2 as the cause of accelerated growth. Cough!
Bernadotte01 1 month ago
@iglwy He's not a science advisor, nor is he a "Lord", FFS man, stop giving this fraud so much credit, he's a conman!
GtheMVP 3 weeks ago 2
My science knowledge compared to you is zero as this question may be one of the simplistic questions you get.Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal dinosaurs went extinct because of climate change,I know there are other theories but sticking with climate change isn't that well just normal?
philosophicalreason 2 months ago
@philosophicalreason =Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal= Yes, it certainly is. The Earth's climate has changed from a snowball to a hothouse and back again several times, depending on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. A high concentration of CO2 can bake it, and a low concentration of CO2 can freeze it. I don't know how this reassures us, however.
potholer54 1 month ago 9
@potholer54 I have a vast ignorance of climatology and would l like to ask if the several cycles of cooling and warming over the history of the planet should be affected by us? Say, if the evidence shows warming due to non anthropological means shouldn't we just let it be? Or if it is due to us in any way what should be done?
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 month ago
@potholer54 Can there be reassurance?If say we all of a sudden figured out how to create a perfect pollution free society would it make any real difference in the way the earths "natural"climate works,keep in mind i am not a scientist.
philosophicalreason 1 month ago
@philosophicalreason If we completely stopped putting CO2 into the air today the planet would continue to warm another ~0.4C due to thermal inertia. After that we'd be at a new equilibrium temperature until natural processes pulled that CO2 back out of the air. That would likely take several hundred years.
The point is, we are essentially whacking the the climate system with a very big stick (CO2) and we do not know exactly how dramatically it's going to respond.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@potholer54 The biggest problem is that as is said in the video is that the sun is larger and hotter now than it ever has been due to its stellar evolution. Combine this with the removal of forest with simultaneous CO2 release and you might have some problems. The more energy the sun delivers to the surface of the earth the greater the amount of infrared being reflected back / trapped.
imortalsappy 1 month ago
@potholer54
is there a set amount of CO2 which does one or the other?
chica476 2 weeks ago
@philosophicalreason But...and it's a big BUT, you have to look at the timescale in which it is happening. In the past changes in climate took centuries to millions of years to occur. Enough time for life to adapt. Now, it's happening in decades, which for a lot of organisms is not enough time to adapt.
DutchLiam84 1 month ago
@DutchLiam84 I agree,see question above to potholer54 only example i can think of which may be totally irrelevant simply because i am not a scientist,but organism did adapt because at the same time dinosaurs where around so where mammals though smaller and they where underground then came above ground my guess is because they had less of a threat posed to them and where able to flourish unless i am wrong mammals where adapting during and up to the extinction of dinosaurs.
philosophicalreason 1 month ago
I don't mean to nitpick, but on the issue of CO2/climate temperature correlation, I think you analysis of Monckton's statements is a bit misleading. In his blog response, Monckton does admit to a correlation, but he claims that this is because CO2 increase following increase in temperature. Your analysis to his blog response ignores Monckton's point about the correlation.
cldstrcrft 2 months ago
@cldstrcrft He doesn't ignore it, he's just focusing on a different point. The point (as Potholer says in part 2 of this video) is that when one of Monckton's claims is debunked, he responds by replacing it with a new claim, hoping the debate over the new claim will bury his mistake. Thus Monckton goes from saying there isn't a correlation, to saying there is a correlation, but it's the wrong way around. Potholer has addressed this new claim in a previous video; also see this URL: sks . to / lag
DeadlyV1RU5 2 months ago
@cldstrcrft =he claims that this is because CO2 increase following increase in temperature.= Monckton can claim anything he likes, and usually does. But he needs to cite a source. All I have done in my videos is check Monckton's sources and discover that in every case Monckton misrepresented his source or his source was non-expert hearsay. But before I tackle this new claim I would like Monckton to clarify whether there is a correlation or not. He claims both.
potholer54 2 months ago 4
@potholer54
Of course. Your debunks are usually very thorough, I wanted to make sure that you hadn't overlooked that aspect of the claim.
cldstrcrft 2 months ago
@potholer54 Replying to the author of the video, are you aware that correlation does not equate causality in any scientific paper. And how is peer review equal to audit, in any respect? Most peer review never conducts an inspection over the raw data anyway, so how does peer review equal audit?
Researchrules 1 month ago
@cldstrcrft "...CO2 increase following increase in temperature."
It really doesn't matter if CO2 is leading or lagging. The radiative properties of CO2 do not change when it's a feedback or a forcing. More CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to retain more heat.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt
Thank you for the response, but I wasn't supporting Monckton's stance, merely stating it.
cldstrcrft 2 months ago
Comment removed
okihelena 1 month ago
I don't mean to self-promote, but I was hoping some of you might be interested in my video about Monckton, in which I summarise some of the less-well known of his ridiculous and false claims: /watch?v=Z0LTCjYv2kk Feedback appreciated. He really is a terrible fraud.
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
This is rather obvious propaganda. This author is attempting to discredit Monckton based on out of context quotes that have been carefully cherry picked.
ClaudiusDenk 2 months ago
@ClaudiusDenk If you want to show how he cherry-picked then go ahead - there is a link in the description of Monckton's response. Then you may restore the context which it was taken out of and we can see how Potholer is deceptive and manipulative.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 2 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@ClaudiusDenk
It's hard to cherry-pick a contradiction without there actually being a contradiction. You give no reason whatsoever for thinking that the context is going to help Monckton's case in any way whatsoever.
Until you can do that... stfu.
100percentrekkie 2 months ago
@ClaudiusDenk you're funny. Monckton does a pretty good job of discrediting himself. even a basic understanding of climate science will reveal how ridiculous he is but please, go ahead and outline exactly where Potholer cherrypicked and put it in context for us all.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
@ClaudiusDenk Yes, please show what quotes he took out of context/cherry picked.
personEks 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX You don't want to get pulled in because you can't argue against the points I'm making. You know nothing about this issue.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
Note how Monckton touches his face twice in a row when claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are "doing fine". This is a body language signal for lying. It seems he doesn't even believe his own nonsense.I wonder what he's up to.
JackyVSO 2 months ago
Match a. To be exactly like; correspond exactly.
You would only ever use this meaning in science when saying "match" and I can't find the meaning you suggest your dictionary states (if it's really there).
Really sad how you will not concede on this matter because saying "remarkable correlation" and "match" are the same really is making you look like a complete fool.
"I gay this"
Well at least I know your literally a child from that statement.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX "Match a. To be exactly like; correspond exactly."
That is ONE definition of the word. Broaden you mind. Read further down into the definition of the word. My dictionary lists about 10 different definitions.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
***get***
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)- Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur
Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)(Paleooceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1044, 2003)- Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ANTICARBONTAX This 1994 paper "Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period" is pretty early research and not very extensive but they also come to a similar conclusion that... "The available evidence suggests that the MWP was global in extent and not uniform climatically" In other words, "heterogeneous."
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX And this paper... "Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea" actually shows warming and cooling in opposite sine from the standard MWP/LIA. They show the warmest SST around 800-500 BP and cooling around 900-1500 BP. Again, the MWP is heterogeneous.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "I **get** this..." Really Whats the Answer?????????? I will finish on a question that is relative to an answer you gave me (it takes 17years to show a trend) using the HadCRUT3 global data, what is the variation in the rate of warming from 1878 and 1910 that's 32years of temperature data. Since you understand this better than me you should have no problem.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Do you know how to read and work out basic temperature data? if so what's the answer? You don't know or you would have answered it already.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
I **get** this...
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX From my dictionary I gay this: Match - noun, A person or thing that equals or resembles another in some respect.
An "exact" match is only one definition of the word.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability(Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004)- P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz
Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period(Science, Vol. 288. no. 5474, pp. 2198 - 2202, 23 June 2000)- Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Alright. Let's go through these. Your first paper: "A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere..." First off, 700 years doesn't go back far enough to even determine a MWP. The paper does not once mention the term MWP. The paper makes no mention of global aspects of warming. This is only a paper about regional temperature. The paper does not use the terms "heterogeneous" nor "homogeneous."
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX You've clearly not read these papers. This one "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period" is about the HOLOCENE. The charts cover the past 20,000 years and they are too course to determine what years either the MWP (which they don't discuss) or the LIA (which they do) occur.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo
Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)- De'Er Zhang
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Now this is a very good paper... "Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand" I've read Ed Cook's papers before. He's an excellent researcher. But look: Similar to the NH, this SH expression of the MWP is not homogeneous in time. Rather, it is composed of two periods of generally above-average warmth, A.D. 1137–1177 and 1210–1260..." Catch that? NOT HOMOGENOUS.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX "Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China" is an interesting paper. They're going through ancient written Chinese records to try to determine changes in climate. Though not a definitive paper they state, In this way, a contradiction with the nominal time interval of the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 900-1300) may be partly resolved."
So, here we have a paper that suggests a MWP that roughly falls into the 900-1300 time frame. But let's read on...
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, Pages 113-125, 6 July 2004)- K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt I have heaps more but See how pointless that is? wow I can link articles that you can't read since you think most words in the English language/science mean the exact same thing lol, Just like you believe "Little correlation" means No correlation, "remarkable correlation" means Match, black means white, cat means dog, and pig means fly. haha seriously go back to school
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX "See how pointless that is?"
Yes, I do see the pointlessness because you don't even know what you're posting. You've not read any of these papers. You only did some googling once I called you out as a liar for saying you had 10 papers that showed a globally homogenous MWP. And the papers do not make the claim that you seem to think they do.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt No I didn't just Google them I had had them specifically for this reason for years but I'm not arguing with you anymore because it's completely pointless and obvious you don't understand this,
So what's the answer to my basic question because it seems your doing allot of squirming right now, you don't know how to read the data do you? If you do just answer the question now please!
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX I'm not squirming. YOU are. I'm clearly pointing out to you where you've not even read the papers you're presenting.
Let me point out the statement in Ed Cook's paper again...
"Similar to the NH, this SH expression of the MWP is not homogeneous in time. Rather, it is composed of two periods of generally above-average warmth, A.D. 1137–1177 and 1210–1260..."
Get that?
"THE MWP IS NOT HOMOGENOUS IN TIME."
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX This is really very simple to understand if you go and compare the GISP2 (Greenland) holocene temp record with the Vostok (Antarctica) holocene temp record. The two generally oscillate in opposite sign. They're called "anti-phase events." It shows how heat energy in the climate system moves around the planet. In contrast, today heat energy is building homogeneously around the planet.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt opposite ***sine***
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt So how are you going with that answer? I'm not getting pulled into your stupid arguments, If you can't even work out basic temperature data then it just proves your don't understand any of this, It's been over a day now, it's obvious you don't know the answer, Thanks for trying though. Better luck Next time.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX So, in other words you lied when you said you had 10 peer reviewed papers that proved the MWP was a homogenous event around the planet.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Okay, an example of
common usage: "I'm glad John and Jane met at the Xmas party. They're a good match."
Am I saying they are absolute exact copies of each other?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Please explain to us how it is not the papers suggesting heterogeneous warming disproving homogenous warming.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt I thought I just did? tell me how the hypothetical example of a million papers stating gold is only found in china disproves 1 peer reviewed paper (not disproved) with evidence of gold being found in other countries. Unless disproved it can't, It's impossible! That 1 paper proves that gold is found all over the world just like the MWP Peer reviewed papers prove they found more evidence that the original papers didn't, I can provide them but you don't seem to understand this at all.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Using your absolutist definition of the word "match" no two humans are a match.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "Using your absolutist definition of the word "match" no two humans are a match."
It's not my definition it's the world's definition, Match is an absolute term correlation isn't I just proved that to you using your own made up definition of words and made you admit you are a match with an ape in your own words.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX You've yet to even provide me with the papers you said show that MWP warming was homogenous.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
What I'm confused about is that apparently the earth does not radiate infrared anyway in the bands that CO2 is unique in absorbing. This seems to imply that an increase in CO2 will make no difference.
davewatcher 2 months ago
@Packgammon There is no research that suggests such a rapid increase in global temperature is going to be good. The most likely effect will be to turn vast areas of farmland into desert. Not a good thing with the world population headed toward 10B.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Well, obviously YOU are not reading any of the science, so how would you even know?
Since the 1970s, the long-term rate of global warming has been around 0.16C a decade but that slowed in the last 10 years to between 0.05C - 0.13C depending on which of the three major temperature record series are used.
Vicky Pope, head of climate science advice, said: 'The warming trend has decreased slightly. There's still a warming trend but it's not as rapid as it was before.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Look, I've seen you out there commenting on climate for a long time. By now you SHOULD realize that 10 years is not statistically significant. The climate system is highly variable and it requires at least 17 years to achieve 95% confidence of any trend at all. Climate scientists EXPECT there to be 10 year periods of leveling off and then 10 year periods of warming that exceeds the trend. No one has ever said CO2 will march lockstep with temperature.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Now If co2 is the main driver of global warming as even Vicky pope stated then how did the worlds rate of warming decrease when the worlds co2 level has increased 5%world wide(25%manmade 10 year period) mostly due to China and India's economic expansion in the same period? Answer: IT CAN'T if co2 is the main driver then adding a HUGE amount of co2 "SHOULD" have massively increased the rate of warming but it didn't, it slowed down. CO2 GLOBAL WARMING FAIL.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Today CO2 is likely responsible for about 75% of current warming. But again, no one ever says that CO2 and temp will go together lockstep. The climate is highly variable. The planet is gaining heat energy is a consistent way over time but it does NOT get expresses immediately as an increase in surface temperature.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
You are fighting a losing battle anticarbon tax, and looking more foolish with every new post. Without a carbon tax we would not only drastically disadvantaging ourselves by removing the best way of initiating a market mechanism to demand renewable inovation, we would also cement our reliance on foreign oil which empowers petrodictatorship in the middleeast.
fearFSM 2 months ago
Quote below by PIERS CORBYN: over 30 years as a meteorologist, astrophysicist who has the HIGHEST long range weather predictions on the planet with over 90% worldwide , 95% on USA land this means he predicts weather (studying the Sun/solar winds/sun spots) from over a year away, e.g. he predicted the to the day the end of the Russian heat wave(permafrost refroze sorry Al Gore) and the Pakistan flood. Direct temperature is mainly the sun as it has always been.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Hmmm.... Piers Corbyn, Piers Corbyn. You know what? I can't seem to find ANY published literature by Corbyn anywhere. I'd have to say he's NOT a climate researcher and is just another paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "Hmmm.... Piers Corbyn, Piers Corbyn. You know what? I can't seem to find ANY published literature by Corbyn anywhere. I'd have to say he's NOT a climate researcher and is just another paid shill for the fossil fuel industry."
Considering he has more experience of over 30years in climate research and has the highest correct % of weather prediction from over a year away, that makes him the highest in this field, so get your facts strait.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "National Academy of Science"
I don't really care if you believe this crap or not but you need to understand who really profits from all this and there worse that any oil industry, BANKS do first and foremost, DO you know that the banks in the UK since the carbon tax have made more profit than ever before while reducing 0% of emissions since the carbon tax there(abc news Australia) and ABC news has been pushed a carbon tax here basically gov sponsoredTV
cabon trading
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX I thought folks like you were all about people making profits! If someone makes a profit by helping to get carbon use down then more power to them!
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Ieven came here to listen to what he had to say but as soon as I saw at the start this dickhead having to flat out lie to prove a point I decided not to give it anymore of my time and didn't watch past the lie.
This whole "global warming" scam is funded by UN who is funded by the world bank which now receives 10% of all tax money, so basically a European BANK is now taxing us in Australia while reducing 0%emissions so I guess the banks won again Congratulations.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Funded by the UN? The IPCC reports are just a consensus report! They are just reporting what the large numbers of complex published literature is saying. If you read any of the actual literature you see that, if anything, the IPCC is being overly conservative in their assessments.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt"Come on, look at the crap diagram that he's pointing at. Have you never seen that website" Which Diagram because the one where lord Monkton states "there is LITTLE(not no which is vastly different to little) Correlation between co2 and the planets temp was made by to esteemed scientists using geologic samples of each time period to build a picture on what the atmosphere/temp was like in the past,I assume similar/same as carbon dating
Link you chart to show it's wrong?
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX The diagram comes from Monte Heib a fossil industry shill who has never produced any actual research on climate. He take graphs from two separate papers and overlays them and claims there is little to no relationship between CO2 and temp. Once is from Scotese and the other from Berner. Problem is, if you READ the papers they don't make the claims that Hieb suggests. In fact they make the opposite claims.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "The diagram comes from Monte Heib a fossil industry shill who has never produced any actual research on climate" haha typical Religious fanatic every time an actual scientists stats that co2 isn't the main driver of Global Warming, you keep stating they must be paid off So just show me the proof that they received oil money and show me Proof Piers Corbyn received oil money or your entire argument becomes null/voided.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX The problem there is, you've not read Scotese or Berner. They do not state the conclusions that Heib is trying to present. They state the opposite.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Being a fossil fuel industry shill does not require receiving money. Though the ones like Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels and others clearly do through their conservative think tank positions.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt"Being a fossil fuel industry shill does not require receiving money" So no proof then haha exactly what I thought, No facts just more alarmist lies in order to discredit honest scientists who can't be paid off by grants. See when I say Al Gore has HUGE ties to Big Oil I can back those claims up (unlike you).
"That is NOT what he says" I used the ACTUAL quote from this video, what's wrong with you? Fanatical much?
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX You have NOT used the actual quote from this video. I HAVE! Anyone else reading this can go to 4:50 and see who is telling the truth. I'm using his exact words. "Here we get a rather prodigious mismatch..."
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt YOU You have NOT used the actual quote from this video. I HAVE! Anyone else reading this can go to 4:50 and see who is telling the truth. I'm using his exact words. "Here we get a rather prodigious mismatch..."
OH really whats his full quote from 4:50 to 5:20 Show everyone how wrong I am, go on link all his quotes or are you such a coward you need to lie like pothead 54?
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt If you want me to believe this then just do what the Government and banks do, Pay me millions/billions of dollars in grants and I'll say whatever you want because just like all these other organisations fuck science I will just take the money and spray lies using only computer models which I will be the one feeding it all the info to make it do what I want.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Well, obviously YOU are not reading any of the science, so how would you even know?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green religion department' to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains fraud.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
They selectively report part of 'weak' sceptics contributions which are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers' mantra.
They misrepresents the observed facts and choose 'straw-man' methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX "AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers' mantra."
Hm, well then who are they and why haven't these people been able to convince every National Academy of Science on the planet to change their position statements on AGW?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "National Academy of Science"
OMG REALLY SO THEY TOOK THE MONEY TOO? lol you forgot to mention the esteemed NASA who was also convinced of "Global Warming" yeah it only took 6 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS of funding A YEAR by the government and they believed it so much they got caught (and sued) changing past temperature records to show a warming where there wasn't one. Wanna know why? CARBON TAX FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD like we had rammed through parliment here
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal innuendo rather than discussing the issues - 'Smear or belittle the messenger if you don't like the message'
2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming 'exceptional' world temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud and 'improvements' on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the Climate Crisis industry are also fraud - with lipstick.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Wrong again. In fact, Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be accurate by the fact that now there are at least 10 other global multi-proxy reconstructions that show virtually exactly the same thing. You can gripe all day long about whether Mann performed his work with the correct methods but when TEN groups get the same answer you have what is considered by any measure to be a ROBUST conclusion.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
I'm Sorry but I have heard Monkton state for years Numerous times that a CO2 increase will increase the temp but he states that it's only very minor, he even uses a peer reviewed paper stating this numerous times, your flat out lying and even his quote you linked he stated "there is little correlation" HE DIDN"T SAY THERE IS NO CORROLATION, suggest you learn not to lie just to prove a point. I gave you benefit of the doubt as a sceptic but you're a flat out liar, you should would for FOX news.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Are you nuts? Potholer clearly posts the VIDEO of Monckton saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years. Then he later states that there IS a clear correlation.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Monkton stated quite clear in the example in this video that "there is LITTLE correlation" NOT NO CORRELATION so I suggest you learn the difference, Plus he has stated at least 10 times in nearly every single debate and speech there is a correlation and it's 1 degree per doubling of co2 numerous times, so saying he believed there is NO correlation is a flat out LIE, as I even went back and checked old interviews he did over a year ago.
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
@ANTICARBONTAX Come on, look at the crap diagram that he's pointing at. Have you never seen that website? The author is conflating two completely separate diagrams, one that absolutely refutes the other. And Monckton is thumping it as proof that there's not a relationship between temp and CO2. You'd have to be utterly blind to not see it.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 <<<<< SOCK ACCOUNT.
MrSyrett 2 months ago
He didn't even bother to get a unique theme for his wordpress blog, using the default twentyten.
PinchySkree 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 I think you'll find he was a freelance journalist. Sorry, I can't reply to you again. You used the term "NWO" without irony, thus highlighting yourself as having the IQ of a boiled potato.
MrSyrett 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 I think you will find that at 13:15 Monckton is doing a "quite childish" impersonation of Justice Burton see "Monckton Bunkum Part 4 -- Quotes and misquotes" watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA at 01:58
EvilLordJon 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 Ive seen some sad reaching by denialists - but implying potholer donned an upper class accent to pass himself off as Monckton is pretty desperate. Have you got conspiracy theories for the other 17 or so rebuttles were Monkton is clearly caught with his pants down? No? Thought not....
MrSyrett 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 He has said he was Thatcher's science advisor, which he never was. He gives links to the full monckton videos, so you can watch it for yourself. None of the sound bites are taken out of context. But since nothing I say will change your love for monckton, I'm done
ZomborContra 2 months ago
@SuperDrive45 I know. In fact I said that in a prior comment. Since you didn't pick that up, I also assume you didn't pick up the fact that as a journalist he gives a source for every single claim he makes. Sources that come from scientists. Pay attention next time
ZomborContra 2 months ago
Lol Monckton maneuver
IMadeOfClay 2 months ago 4
I fucking hate stupid fucktards pretending to act like scientists.
Thanks Potholer for destroying the Denialist Idiot Brigade.
Primordialfan1 2 months ago
NOBODY takes Mock-ton seriously. Yes - there are tons of sock puppet accounts online by a single denier or two. But, nobody takes this running joke "Lord" seriously.
mphello 2 months ago 2
Hey, deniers shithead: put your shithead into a plastic bag and seal it good,
since unlimited amounts of CO2 is good for you.
You shouldn't be breeding, so put your kids' head into a plastic bag and seal it good, forever, too.
mphello 2 months ago
I feel bad for his eyes. Might be a sign something isn't right with his brain. Maybe delusional since birth. Beating up and handicap isn't my forte'. Simply underlining their obvious inconsistency should be enough.
RichardCoughlan101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RichardCoughlan101 He has a condition called Graves disease for which he claims to have invented a cure.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
4:16 of course the arctic ice has been shrinking since the satellites when up, the ice caps have been shrinking since the end of the ICE AGE....
arkivx1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkivx1 "the ice caps have been shrinking since the end of the ICE AGE"
That is not correct. If you read any of the published literature you find that the planet has been in a slow natural orbitally forced cooling phase over the past 6000 years during which the ice sheets have grown. Now we are in a complete and abrupt reversal of that natural trend and are rapidly losing ice. We are expected to start seeing ice free summer conditions within the next ~10 years. See: Miller et al 2010
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkivx1 And BTW, the planet has not seen ice free summers likely anytime during the holocene, and it's very likely it's been several million years since the Arctic has been ice free in the summer.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
When will you do an ALgore video?
arkivx1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkivx1 Potholer has addressed some of the issues with Gore's movie in another video but the problem is that most of what Gore says is pretty consistent with the published literature.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
Great rebuttal. Thanks potholer54.
NB. At around 15 minutes 15 seconds mark Monckton notes "warming at surface of Jupiter" - erm, Jupiter has no real surface - just a vast atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium gradually changing to a supercritical fluid "mantle" region then metallic hydrogen over perhaps some sort of core. At the cloudtops of Jove did he mean, maybe? (Minor nitpick compared to the rest of his howlers but still.)
Astrostevo 2 months ago
Thatcher sold everything that was great britain, who cares even if he were...
Yahweigh 2 months ago