Climate-Gate. Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton - Part 2 of 5

[scoobydoobytoob]

I love how easy it is to poke fun a global warmists!

[bademoxy]

pollution is a form of waste, which should be rationally approached calmly in a measured approach to gradually(cost effectively) reduce that waste. the alarmists overreaction and outright statistical manipulations can cause more harm through panicked legislation than doing nothing.

[shackle5]

Al Gore fooled me. I have to say Gore was brilliantly convincing in An Inconvenient truth. I now know Al is a corrupt motherf*cker who couldn't give a damb about anyone or anything except his bank account. Jail him.

[marvinc999]

@shackle5

Good for you !

It takes courage and intellectual integrity to admit that YOU've been fooled.

But (man-made) 'Global Warming' is just one of many, many frauds on the part of our control-freak Masters.

Please God, people ARE starting to wake up, and beginning to rediscover their autonomy - by QUESTIONING more, and BELIEVING less.

[meghaljani]

@shackle5 The same thing happened to me, and I have the same feelings.

[tooyjfwn]

goggle eyed fuckwit

[MelonHeadFilmz]

its so good to see that the news companies of Canada are so open on this debate. In British news programmes, we have journalists chosen on the grounds of their leftist global warmingist views presenting these programmes who don't give geniuses like lord Monckton space to breathe

[LoryLandskipper]

@MelonHeadFilmz

Geniuses like Lord Monckton!? HAHAHAHA

[co2isgoodal]

It's totally amazing that people still believe the global warming nonsense.

After Toto pulled away the curtain even the scarecrow didn't say,

"Hey, where's the wizard?...the Wizard is still real and you better beieve it. I have scientific proof from the horse of a diffrent colour and 2400 flying monkeys!"

[LoryLandskipper]

@co2isgoodal

It shouldn't AMAZE you, and language like this shows your bias in this topic. If you are looking for a certain outcome, you'll allow yourself to become misinformed by the likes of "Lord" Monckton.

The only people who WANT agw to be real are the people who stand to profit from it. Bioseed companies pushing for flex fuel based on corn, for instance.

Climatologists, and all scientists alike have to observe factual data, and base conclusions off that. Not find bits and pieces.

[beeveemee]

Well, that's one way of saying it. Maybe I would have chosen a different phrasing, but you are absolutely right.

[beeveemee]

@jonohx

For more info on what we know about climate change please watch

watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

and please don't hesitate to check out the references listed in the info for this vid. Just click "more info".

[umrmecheman]

good example to illustrate radiation effects. also, does anybody really believe that the earth doesn't have numerous different mechanisms inherently in itself that allows it to remain relatively stable and conducive too life.

If this planet we call earth were truly as unstable as AGW hypothesis suggest then life on earth would've been eradicated millenniums ago. Instead the earth has mechanisms such as increased cloud cover from evaporating oceans to help counteract changes in climate.

[instinctfx]

What amazes me is that people INSIST that you MUST believe what they say about warming is the truth otherwise you are branded a heretic and here i was thinking this was a modern society. Pfft.

[TightfittingUnderpan]

You could say the same about the existence of god but it happens. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'modern society' because it changes all the time and has everything to do with our opinion on what is modern. There is NO proof that there is a god just as there is very little evidence that man increases Global Warming. That hasn't stopped both opinions prevailing worldwide. It's more to do with ignorance, manipulation and CONTROL, than modernity. Ignorance will ALWAYS exist.

[phonykingofengland1]

The globa lwarming hoax is busted

[beeveemee]

You just missed one part there Monckton. The planet is warming DUE TO the fact that less outgoing radiation is escaping into space.

The incoming radiation is warming the earth and, at the same time, outgoing radiation is cooling the earth. Since the greenhouse gases are trapping some of the outgoing radiation, the earth is not cooling down enough anymore. Instead, the warming is now greater than the cooling. We have a global warming effect.

[HelloimJim]

Your theory is right on the ball...just its not actually happening like that.

[jonohx]

er...not really. Atmospheric gases are a very poor store of heat (that's why it freezes on a clear night). Excess atmospheric heat is rapidly lost by convection and radiation. The energy is mostly stored in the oceans. 0.4% atmospheric CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate.

[beeveemee]

Yes, atmospheric gases are very poor at storing heat and most of the heat is stored in the oceans. That is true.

However, 0.4 % atmospheric CO2 has plenty to do with climate. It keeps the heat from escaping, similar to how my clothes (1-2% of my weight) keep my heat from escaping from my body, where most of the heat is stored in blood, muscle and fat.

[jonohx]

If CO2 'keeps the heat from escaping' why would we need clothes at all?

If CO2 was 2% of the weight of the earth, we would need 1.2x10Exp20 tonnes of it. There is only 3.0x10Exp12 tonnes of it - about ten thousand million times too little.

Besides, clothes trap a warm layer of air against the skin - CO2 doesn't. It absorbs some infra-red radiation - totally different mechanism. CO2 is only responsible for 1.6W/m2 warming (IPCC figures) - about 3% of the total - it can't control climate.

[beeveemee]

Yes, clothes and CO2 are different mechanisms. Clothes prevents convective cooling (the direct transfer of heat between molecules due to colliding molecules), while CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and sends some of it back. I just wanted to illustrate how a small number (2% compared to 0.4%) can have a warming effect.

[beeveemee]

Do you actually understand what "1.6 W/m2 warming" means? It means that the top 1m of the oceans will warm 1 deg.C in roughly one month, or the top 10m will warm 1 deg.C in less than a year. That is of course just a simplified calculation based on the properties of water (heat capacity = cp = 4.2 kJ/kg*K) and thermodynamics (dE=cp*m*dT), not including heating of anything else than 1m (or 10m) of water and not including increased outgoing radiation due to increased temperature.

[beeveemee]

I don't know where you got your figures from, saying that CO2 is responsible for 3% of the total greenhouse effect. A quick check at Wikipedia gave: "By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect the four major gases are:

* water vapor, 3670%

* carbon dioxide, 926%

* methane, 49%

* ozone, 37%"

[beeveemee]

The greenhouse effect keeps the earth at ~32 deg.C higher temp than it would otherwise (average at 14 deg.C instead of -18deg.C), which might help you to realise that even a 3% contribution would make some difference. The global warming we have observed so far is ~0.5 deg.C during the last 40 years, and 0.5/32=0.016=1.6%. It can definitely have an effect on climate.

[jonohx]

All gases have a 'greenhouse effect', including water vapour, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. The question is to what degree. Copenhagen wants to confiscate and spend trillions of $ to prevent 0.02C rise over the next 10 years. The 'business as usual rise' is predicted to be 0.29C (all IPCC figures). It is obvious that adaptation is the sensible choice - unless you want to bankrupt western economies. In other words, AGW presents no real threat or danger.

[jonohx]

....and that's according to the IPCC dodgy data. The reality is probably far less. What on Earth is everyone so paranoid about?? If you're still worried, remember tha's exactly how politicians want you to feel, so they lead you by the hand to 'safety' - and pick your pocket on the way.

[beeveemee]

@jonohx

How much do you know about science, really? What I can see from your comments you seem to have misunderstood plenty.

For example, nitrogen and oxygen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water is a greenhouse gas which can not be controlled byhumans since it is released (mainly) from the oceans. The warmer it gets, the more water vapour are released from the oceans and the greenhouse effect is increased.

[beeveemee]

Where do you get your numbers from? You should have them checked. No agreement was made at the summit in Copenhagen, so you can't say that "Copenhagen wants". It was said that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2C. The cost of this is predicted to be around 1% of the global GDP. The cost of doing nothing is predicted to be much higher. The Third Assessment Report from IPCC estimates a 5.8C increase in global average temperature for a business as usual scenario.

[jonohx]

Dr Phil Jones has just admitted that the temp. rise predictions were exagerrated by a factor of 5, that there has been no warming for 15 years, that the data for the hockey stick is 'lost' i.e. does not exist. Your figures are nonsense.

[beeveemee]

watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag

[jonohx]

@beeveemee

The IPCC has recently said that the business as usual 5.8C was over estimated by a factor of 7. It should have been 0.8C. Implementing all of Copenhagen would save only 0.2C - hardly possible to measure, so what's the point of it.

[jonohx]

Of course oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases - why do you think the av. temp of the earth is about 20C ? Do you think its entirely due to the 0.3% fraction of CO2? So why do you think that planets without any atmosphere swing hundreds of degrees from day to night? Water is not a greenhouse gas - it's a liquid. Water vapour is not 'released from the oceans' - water evaporates. I count 4 statements and 4 errors in your post. That's 0/4 by my arithmetic. How much science do you know?

[beeveemee]

I think I know plenty of science. At least my masters degree in physics says so. As an example, I know that different molecules absorb energy from electromagnetic radiation (IR, visible light, UV, X-ray etc.) at different wavelengths. CO2 , methane and water vapor are greenhouse gases because they absorb infrared (IR) radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not.

Nitrogen and Oxygen do most of their absorption from radiation in the UV wavelengths and other radiation with higher energies.

[beeveemee]

Radiation from the sun (mostly UV and visible) goes through the atmosphere with very little absorption. That radiation heats the earth. The warm earth radiates outwards with a longer wavelength (infrared), which cools the earth. But, since there are greenhouse gases, some of the IR radiation is absorbed again and the earth does not cool down as much as it should have without the greenhouse gases.

[jonohx]

@beeveemee - you say N and O2 'do not absorb IR'. In fact O2 and O3 have a small absorbtion band in the IR spectrum and quite a large one in the far infrared. Methane and CHCs are thousands of times more effective than CO2, and the % of water vapour is much higher than the 0.03% CO2. Not only is the CO2 % subject to balance by sequestration, its forcing effect is logarithic and reduces as % goes up. It is fairly obvious that CO2 cannot control climate.

[beeveemee]

O3 (ozone) has a small absorption band in the IR spectrum, yes. That is why it is the 4'th largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. O2 and N2 does not, at least not in any significant amount.

Besides, the amounts of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere has not changed during the past centuries. CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 and CFCs has changed, and all indications say it is due to human impact. Water vapour in the atmosphere has also increased due to warmer oceans, a so called "positive feedback".

[beeveemee]

You should again check your numbers. CH4 (methane) has a warming potential of 25 times greater than (the same amount of) CO2 over a 100 year peiod, or 72 times greater than CO2 over a 20 year period. The difference between long and short periods is due to that CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere.

The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is however much lower than CO2, so the total impact is lower. CH4 has a current concentration of 1.7 ppm which is a 150% increase from a pre-industrial level.

[beeveemee]

The logarithmic effect you are talking about does exist, but I believe you have misunderstod it slightly. It is true that the forcing effect (per ppm) is lower as the percentage increases. An increase from 380 ppm to 480 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will not have as high impact on the climate as the increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm has.

It is just that this contradicts what you said before. A small amount of CO2 (only 380 ppm) in the atmosphere does have a large impact.

[jonohx]

No - I agree with you. So what is the actual heating effect in the climate of 380ppm CO2 vs. 280ppm?

[beeveemee]

The actual heating effect from the increase of CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm that we have seen is aproximately what you said earlier, 1.6 W/m2.

See my earlier comments for what 1.6 W/m2 actually means, how a 10m deep water reservoir can increase 1 degC in temp in less than a year.

[jonohx]

Yes, we had that figure before - but what effect does it have on GMT?

10m deep, say 1m square = 1 x 10e7 g water. You need 4.2J to heat 1g water by 1 degree C. 1.6w heats 1g in 2.6 secs. Reservoir will need 2.6 x 10e7 seconds = 300days - but with heat losses could be several times longer. Ocean area = 3.6x10e14m2. Vol = 1.26x10e24g. Time to heat 1 degree C = 0.9 x 10e10 seconds = 317 years (without losses).

[beeveemee]

@jonohx: Sorry for my late response

For your calculations to be correct we would need an extremely high heat transfer from the surface to the bottom of the oceans. That is not the case in reality since warm surface water (warmer than +4 deg C) has a lower density than the cold water at the bottom. If the surface water gets warmer, it will lose more density and consequently stay at the surface, and the large ocean currents are just too slow to transfer enough heat to the bottom of the oceans.

[beeveemee]

In other words, warmer surface temperature in our oceans will have an impact on the atmospheric temperature close to Earths surface (GMT).

For more information about oceans role in climate, please read:

w w w. oco. noaa. gov/ index. jsp?show_page =page_roc. jsp&nav=universal

[jonohx]

Yes, I understand - there are many complexities. But the basic premise of AGW is that a small (0.03%) percentage of atmospheric CO2 now controls the climate, whereas much greater concentrations in the past did not do so. Why is this?

[beeveemee]

There are many things that "control" climate, CO2 is one of them. For a longer, and better, explanation please watch this video

watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

If you still have questions after that, please watch the whole playlist it's part of.

For a small illustration on how CO2 can have a big impact on warming the earth even though it is a very small percent of the atmosphere, please watch

watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

[beeveemee]

"O2 and O3 have a small absorbtion band in the IR spectrum and quite a large one in the far infrared."

If you by "far infrared" mean at waveleangths around 0.2-0.3 micrometer, that is ultraviolet not infrared. t is not even close to wavelengths radiating from Earth.

[beeveemee]

@jonohx

One good example of how this IR absorption can be found here:

/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

[Saidenz]

@beeveemee

Wikipedia is a completely accurate and factual source for all scientific information I hear.

[beeveemee]

@Saidenz

No, Wikipedia is not always completely accurate. I would for instance not rely on it for a scientific report. When I, on the other hand, allready have some notion of what I'm talking about and I see that Wikipedia seem to have accurate information, then I think it can be a good source of information. It is also easily accesible for all of you.

i definitely rely more on the information at Wikipedia than some business consultant or policy adviser (Monckton) on a TV show.

[beeveemee]

I see now that my numbers was a bit wrong in my previous post. I am sorry for that. It should of course have been:

"By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect the four major gases are:

* water vapor, 36-70%

* carbon dioxide, 9-26%

* methane, 4-9%

* ozone, 3-7%"

instead of the 3670%, 926%, 49% and 37% I posted previously. That's the risk one has to take when copying the text directly from Wikipedia.

[Saidenz]

@beeveemee

So the fact that Monckton listens to scientists who monitor satellite data plus the scientist who provides ice core carbon dioxide history data makes him less of a reliable source than Wikipedia... is why?

[beeveemee]

@Saindenz

You can listen to the scientists who monitor satelite data yourself,

ht tp: // climate. nasa. gov/

Then tell me if that is what Monckton is saying.

If you go in to Wikipedia, you can at least find references to where the information comes from, which I've never heard from Monckton. If the sorce of that information is reliable and the info on Wikipedia is the same as in the reference, then I do believe the info on Wikipedia.

[beggarz]

Put another way, all humans today collectively produce 0.011415525% of the energy hitting the Earth from the Sun every year.

Still think we're causing Global Warming?

The fact is, we don't know WHAT is going on.

[KW2156]

@beggarz Where did you find this number?

[beggarz]

I got this number from the Climate Pope himself, Al Gore.

He states constantly that the Sun hits us every HOUR with as much energy as we currently produce in a year.

There are approx. 8760 hours in a year.

Thus, humans produce 1/8760th of the energy the sun hits us with in one year, or 0.011415525% of the annual input of energy into our atmosphere from these two sources alone.

Yet it is Human Activity, not the SUN, which controls climate?

Right.

Take it up with Al Gore, dude.

[beeveemee]

@beggarz

Good thinking, except that the global warming is not a direct effect of the energy we are putting in. It is an effect of the greenhouse effect, which traps some of the outgoing radiation. The incoming radiation (mostly visible light from the sun) heats up the earth and the outgoing radiation (infra-red from the earth surface) cools down the earth. As long as the incoming radiation is equal to the outgoing radiation, we will have a constant temperature.

contiued --->

[beeveemee]

However, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) has trapped some of the outgoing radiation and now the cooling is slightly smaller than the warming. That is why we see a global warming.

For more info, see:

watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

It gives you a good, understandable, explanation of climate science. It gives good info from both sides, AGW proponents as well as skeptics.

[beggarz]

I saw Gore on CNN the other day, he is so full of shit it's coming out his ears.

He brought up the oft mentioned statistic, which I do not dispute, the one hour of sunlight hits the Earth with as much energy as our entire planet produces in a year.

Well, wow, I mean, that's our beloved Sun, right? Where would we be without HEAT?

Anyway, the point is that this represents 8760 times as much energy as we use in a year, hitting the Earth courtesy of the Sun.

[Pantherandpolitics]

Fantastic video mate. I'll add it to my collection of climate scam vid's. Thanks.

[dreamreal756]

If "Climate Change" was the huge problem, to life on earth, that they say it is, shouldn't we have every scientist

( physicists, astronomers, biologists, etc,everyone ) working on it. Obviously it's not.

Say no to "Carbon" Legislation.

Say yes to cleaning up our pollution.

It's a shame SPPI gets funding from Exxon 'cause it will get used against them.

[digitalfilmvillage]

Thank you Lord Monckton for providing an alternate view on global warming. I think I've been had by scientists at CRU and IPCC after reading their climategate emails. I'm glad Nopenhagen fails miserably because I hate the idea of a world governance imposing a 2% tax on our nation GDP and give billions to other nations. How about keeping our billions and feed the hungry in the states? Some say global warming is a scam, I am now tend to believe them after reading those emails.

[DanMorin007]

Yes, it is sad indeed. I have been following the ClimateGate scam very closely (I barely do any work) and this is the first time I see this video.

[oicub2]

the truth is, people don't want, like, except or expect the truth. So it must be replaced with fantasy. if you want the truth to set you free, you first have to be freed from yourself. It is the self who lies to the self. All one has to do to find the truth is open ones mind. & Ask, " what will I do with the truth?"

[auggiedoggy]

Its a pity the networks here in Canada and the USA shy away from this subject. Cheers to CTS for airing this program!!!

[1churchmouse]

I think I'm in love with the Truth, as put forth by my knight in shining armour - Lord Christopher Monckton!

[christru2]

plenty to see here.this dude is trying to warn Americans.

[piranhahead]

One of the best interviews I've seen!

[DanMorin007]

I agree. Don't forget to watch this one: watch?v=HuifVNofEtk (Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming)

[cujo9]

lord christopher is the man to listen to, i said it right from the begginning , he is one of our great hopes , a great legend !

[herbs814]

Yes, warming would be beneficial, not anything to worry about and certainly not anything to legislate or regulate.

[niallvan]

Bravo!!

[freedomnow2012]

Favored it, this guys is great!!!

[wheelzwheela]

bosommaster you need learn english? me think is.

[SatoBrooks]

"The truth: global warming isn't a problem"

Arrogant Lord PoopyPants needs to apologize.

[misterkleen]

wow you're dumb.

[SatoBrooks]

Please clarify misterkleen.

[DanMorin007]

Global Warming IS a problem... it is about enslaving mankind with a carbon tax. Global Warming is the hidden agenda for plutocracy.

[bkglamb]

@DanMorin007 It boils downs to this, control of every living thing on earth. As far as I know every living thing on earth interacts in one way or another with carbon dioxide.

[kevaquarian]

Finally! The 'house of cards' that is human-caused global warming is collapsing. Fantastic. The mainstream media are trying to cover up and re-interpret the truth as usual - in the pocket of the establishment. I really hope this goes fully mainstream though - it will have such positive repercussions for us all. How many people out there have been thinking, 'my Government acts in my best interests'??? Ahem, actually no.

[bosommaster]

The guy have no ideal what is climate. He knows nothing about science, his demo just made me laugh.

[unifiedfielder]

haha wow learn some grammer bosommaster.

[WarrivarNeo]

and you do?

[auggiedoggy]

@bosommaster:

1. He dumbed it down but you ...

2. Still don't get it , which leads to ...

3. You need to learn English.

[thatstheguy07]

thats cuz your an idiot and can only make your decisions when the tv tells u what to think.

nothing to see here, go back to sleep.

[auggiedoggy]

I'd love to see Suzuki (or one of his flunkies) debate Monckton. Not going to happen though. Suzuki would be made a fool of if he ever made such a mistake.

[NoisemakerArrow]

Same as the people who say the Holohoax is real. They never ever debate Zundel, or Irving, or Toben.

[3vpme]

Lord monckton is the man

[panzmeyer]

@3vpme I think the next Nobel Peace Prize handed out should go to Monckton, for all the work he's done to expose this enormous fraud, and control-grab.

[streetwarrior31]

@panzmeyer

they wont do that becouse Nobels Peace prize are a fraud to.....dont you belive.....see what happened with Obama....they " try " to shouve it up ower throuts that War is peace and with need to achieve peace by making war....is that stupid or not.

We must open ower eyes fast becouse all this " Nobel " institutions are made to protect the estableshiment.

P.S- sorry about the errors and grammar

[bkglamb]

@panzmeyer I second that motion.

[redcollargedeon]

Here's my question: When will the UK start producing wine again?

Wasn't there a time when grapes grew in England?

There was a time when the Thames would freeze over and people could skate on it, but there was also a warmer period.

Why is this the end of the world, all of a sudden?

5 star video. Thanks for uploading this.

[FromDimmuLand]

Bravo !!! Why is Media Silent on this matter ?

Are media in on the Scam ?

[ngonea]

@FromDimmuLand - Yes!

"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

Noam Chomsky

[yourboycal]

media has to side with the sctientists , the owners of the media are in ties with government, big institutions big cooporations, the media is like a movie , theres the movie version for the general public, then the real version behind the scenes . Do you like the movie version ? or the behind the scene version of climate change? what makes more sense to you?

[yourtube20061]

great, great !!

more ppl like him r needed.

[GAPeachWoman]

Bravo Lord Monckton for telling the truth!