Abraham debunks Lord Monckton climate denialist 1of6

[markjamesnelson]

It's borat you are arguing with btw lolllll

[BewareTheBeast]

My background is common sense. I lived in an ancient village in Scotland that has been a small port for milenia. I trust my eyes...the sea hasn't raised a fucking inch. NOT ONE INCH.

[ndrthrdr1]

I don't understand why anyone would still be hugging Monckton's nuts. The man's an asshat.

[QueOraSi]

This was so boring I started pulling my own teeth out!

[djarm67]

@QueOraSi I guess that doesn't take long for all 3.

[evspatsfan22]

@djarm67 you do know that Lord Monckton is really Sacha Baron Cohen and that this is all an act, hope you had fun wasting your time disproving a comedy routine

[vindician]

Most pathetic attempt of debunking ever...

[djarm67]

@vindician You need to watch it with the volume up.

[vindician]

@djarm67 I did. But I wish I hadn't, then I wouldn't been so nauseated by this so called scientist, who is about as scientific as Bill Maher.

[guwest2]

@vindician try potholer54's vids if this doesn't float your boat.

[vindician]

@guwest2 No thank you. Considering the ridiculousness of this so called "debunking", which was pathetic beyond belief, I think I'll pass.

[OtagoMark]

djarm67 , You're a shame mate, I read the comments in this thread and all I see is you launching an ad hominem attack on anyone who disagrees. And the information cited in this video is incorrect... and the guy in the video starts by attacking lord monckton the man rather than Lord Moncktons arguments. His argument about sea level rise is irrelevant as Monckton was contrasting the ipccs with Al Gores, And the guys logic is off Monckto compared apples with apples regards sea rise, not Abraham

[dmlt12]

Great; thanks for this video! Let those most qualified and articulate help educate the public not just for the public to receive well spoken articulate but pretty woeful distortions from PR people like the Lord.

[ThroughTheirEyesISee]

oh, sweet sweet pwnage. Delicious! 

[mistereveready]

I'm just glad you didn't show a picture of Monckton. That is one ugly mother fucker. Every time I see him I give a shiver of disgusts and hum the song "Jeepers Creepers".

[LuisManuelLealDias]

The quote that dr. John Houghton didn't say is not "non-existent". What did happened is that he was misquoted. His actual quote was different, but it did exist, in 1995 the sunday telegraph made an interview with sir John Houghton.

Here's the scan:

john-adams dot co dot uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/­houghton-and-god.pdf

[Radi4Music]

Thank you, Dr. Abraham, for investing the time and effort that you have, in preparing this video presentation. It was clear, chock-full-of-facts, dispassionate yet fierce debunking of Monckton and his clear effort to mislead and outright lie to his audience at practically every point in the debunked presentation.

[Ambidexter143]

Monckton is notable for three things:

1.  Lying about being a member of the British Parliament.

2. Having a grandfather who helped Edward VIII abdicate in the 1930s.

3. Having an uninformed opinion on a scientific topic.

[Desertphile]

"Lord?" No. Other than that, an excellent video series. Thank you.

[Swamoez0rs]

I'm curious if legal measures can be taken against Monckton considering his use of false credentials and lies on this platform?

[ScottishAtheist]

@Swamoez0rs He was officially asked to stop using the Port Cutlass symbol, and also to stop claiming he was a member of the house of Lords. But being the bell end he is, he's got his own definition of what "member of the house of Lords" means. So he thinks he's justified in using it.

[Swamoez0rs]

@ScottishAtheist Thanks for your reply, but it shouldn't matter whether one "thinks" to be justified if one simply ISN'T. Or do I not grasp the entire picture here?

[ScottishAtheist]

@Swamoez0rs Best I can do is offer you this link. w w w(.)bbc(.)co(.)uk/news/uk-poli­tics-14190400 He relies on the ignorance of his audience that assumes he holds some important position in Parliament. He also lies or greatly exaggerates his position with Margaret Thatcher, vis-à-vis her science adviser

[Swamoez0rs]

@ScottishAtheist Thank you, unfortunately I am in no position to take legal measures against him. But, as you I'm sure, it is this form of fraud that I just cannot stand.

[djarm67]

To all viewers and CFACT stooges. Koch Industries funds CFACT

greenpeace (dot) org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/pub­lications/gwe/Koch-Report-2-FI­NAL (dot) pdf

[CrimsonRefractions]

@djarm67

Good science is good science though, although if this source of funding isn't disclosed in the paper it's definitely not a good thing.

Not sure if Greenpeace is the most reliable source however. Consider me skeptical.

[steam0001]

The original video /watch?v=stij8sUybx0 time mark 27:50, this video time mark 11:35, & it rebutted by /watch?v=G8tRF7siBjs.

Why did Abraham not mention that the author of the paper concluded that the Polar bears died because of a large storm & not global warming.?

At the end of part one here he states that Monckton referenced these scientists. He did not. He sighted a single conclusion, from the paper, that refutes what Al Gore had stated.

[djarm67]

@steam0001 The question you need to ask is "how many dead polar bears had been noted in the previous 30 years of the same research method which had included many previous storms?"

[steam0001]

@djarm67 The question you have to ask yourself is what is the major cause of most polar bear deaths. It is hunting! Polar bears are going to die in storms. So what? That is a part of nature that animals will die in storms.

Look polar bears have been around for a long time. Times for when there has been no ice in the arctic. Look there still here! Doing just fine& growing in numbers so what is the problem?

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "The question you have to ask yourself is what is the major cause of most polar bear deaths. It is hunting!"

This is typically called "non sequitur". The topic was not "What is the greatest cause?" but "What is the outcome for polar bears under decreasing sea ice conditions?"

Yes, polar bears die in storms. They have a greater chance of dying when there is less sea ice, which is expected (and observed) under global warming conditions.

[steam0001]

@Elitistb616 The polar bears are doing fine. My point is that the polar bears are in far more danger from hunting. If you want to help the polar bears make sure we don't hunt them into extinction.

Polar bears have been around a long time. Times much warmer then now. Times when there have been no sea ice. Times when Green Land was named because it was green. They survived that they while survive it again. Beside GW/CC are natural. Human effect on the average temp is very small.

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "Polar bears have been around a long time."

Yep.

"Times much warmer then now."

Not sure on that one, but I'll give it to you.

"Times when Green Land was named because it was green."

K.

"They survived that they while survive it again."

Maybe so.

"Beside GW/CC are natural."

Non sequitur.

[wprange]

@steam0001 Polar bears haven't been around "a long time", only 150K. The oldest known polar bear fossil is a 130K to 110K-year-old jaw bone.

In geolocal times, this was just the previous interglacial, meaning they have only experienced one complete glaciation or Ice Age. So your claim that polar bears survived times "much warmer than now" is ludicrous.

Just as those other bits of propaganda which display an utter lack of understanding of climate: "Green Land was named because it was green".

[steam0001]

@wprange So just that I understand are you claiming that since the last ice age that there have not been significantly warm times then there are now? Before you answer you may wish to view Monckton's rebuttal video /watch?v=G8tRF7siBjs.

[wprange]

@steam0001 You mean his fleeting reference to the Holocene Climatic Optimum? Globally, we've already surpassed the maximum temperatures of that.

[steam0001]

@wprange Is it not historical fact that one time that parts of Greenland had forests & open fields free from snow in the summer? Is it then not likely that Norsemen that first came there they named it Greenland because the land was green? Is it not then that they settled the area growing crops, livestock, & cutting down trees? Tell me do these activities occur in Greenland today or perhaps it is just a little to cold there for that now?

[wprange]

@steam0001 "Tell me do these activities occur in Greenland today"

Yes. 10% of all potatoes consumed in Greenland are produced locally, with a projection of 15% by 2020. New crops have been introduced, such as apples, strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and carrots. In southern Greenland the growing season is mid-May through to mid-September, on average three weeks longer than a decade ago.

"or perhaps it is just a little to cold there for that now?"

No.

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "Is it not historical fact that one time that parts of Greenland had forests & open fields free from snow in the summer?"

This is all still a gigantic red herring. "It was once warmer than now" has absolutely nothing to do with concerns as to the current warming. Then, we didn't have countries, we didn't have guns, we didn't have intercontinental warfare, we didn't have nukes, and we didn't have billions of human lives living everywhere.

[CrimsonRefractions]

@djarm67

The polar bears died of malnutrition! Not global warming!

This poster is just playing catch and run. We have evidence the world is warming up. We have evidence the polar bear habitats are shrinking. I'm not sure if we have evidence the two are linked, but it's not unreasonable to suggest it, considering the previous two. Considering temperatures go up and down, it's not out of the question that this is a normal cycle, but we know for certain that if the world warms up continuously it

[CrimsonRefractions]

@djarm67

would in the future cause this.

[djarm67]

@steam0001 Say hello to exxonmobil for me

[Drgamedood]

@djarm67 You should make a little change to the title. Instead of lord, put "lord". Since the house of lords recently released a statement saying monckton was never a member of the house of lords.

[fleemonstay]

@Drgamedood He's a hereditary peer you cunt, he was born to it. I suppose you think that Prescott is a real lord?!

Fucking retard.

[Drgamedood]

@fleemonstay No you moron. Monckton claimed to have been a former member of the house of lords. The house itself issued a public statement saying that this is false. But you'd know that if you didn't spend all your time on anti-science websites.

[fleemonstay]

@Drgamedood NO! you brainwashed cretin, look at what he DID say:

watch?v=tNJrtR9i6WA

at 32:47!

[ToSho29]

@Drgamedood Actually, even though the title 'Chief Idiot Monckton' would suit him better, he is a Lord. He is just not a member of the House of Lords, a claim that he kept on making. The letter to him by the House of Lords even addresses to him as 'Dear Lord Monckton' (dub dub dub) (dot) parliament (dot) uk/business/news/2011/july/let­ter-to-viscount-monckton/ He is a Lord because of his 'noble' (:D) birth. I couldn't care one way or the other.

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "Why did Abraham not mention that the author of the paper concluded that the Polar bears died because of a large storm & not global warming.?"

Abraham mentioned exactly what the author of the paper concluded.

"My published work suggests that polar bears may drown under conditions that are expected to develop due to decreasing sea ice." It's right there, slide 18. The scientist disagreed with Monckton's conclusions. Kindly stop trolling.

[steam0001]

@Elitistb616 The polar bears not other polar bears may drown. The 4 polar bears in the report drown clear because of a large storm. non sequitur?

Monckton never brought up the author possible predictions of future events. The authors can make any prediction they wish to make (with future funding in mind) but does it agree with the facts in the paper? If you want to know what Monckton thinks of these predictions I refer you his rebuttal video /watch?v=G8tRF7siBjs

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "Monckton never brought up the author possible predictions of future events."

Yep. So he brought up the paper without understanding what it was talking about. Good job, you can show that Monckton is terrible all by yourself. Also, you still don't know the meaning of non sequitur, as you used it in a nonsensical fashion. Non sequitur - it does not follow. It is used when a statement is totally not related to the previous statements.

[steam0001]

@Elitistb616 It doesn't follow that just because Monckton brought up a single fact in the paper, to show that what AL Gore stated that these four polar bears died because of G.W. to be incorrect, that he was bring up the entire paper in support of his argument. He was not. It is professor Abraham that is using a non sequitur.

Is it not possible for someone to use a fact from a paper in support of an argument even if they should disagree with the rest of the paper?

[Elitistb616]

@steam0001 "Is it not possible for someone to use a fact from a paper in support of an argument even if they should disagree with the rest of the paper?"

Okay, I read Monckton's rebuttal page. He states that Gore said that polar bears are dying due to swimming long distances to find ice that has since melted away. Gore cites that paper. Gore is correct, that is what the paper was talking about.

[Elitistb616]

@Elitistb616 Continued...

Monckton states that Gore is incorrect. This is wrong, the paper directly supports that this would become more commonplace with warming temperatures (which is what is happening).

Monckton also states that the true threat to bears is hunting. This is the non sequitur. The point was never "what is the greatest threat", nor even "polar bears are definitely going to die out". The point was "more will die in this fashion due to pack ice melting".

[acutube50]

@steam0001 He sighted a single conclusion, from the paper, that refutes what Al Gore had stated.

And who is this Al gore exactly? He's a climatologist working at which institute?

[steam0001]

@acutube50 Who is Al Gore? Well Al Gore is a former V.P. of the U.S. who made a movie about G.W. with several in accuracies. That is who Al Gore is. Next time Google it.

Now am I to understand it is your point of view that Monckton doesn't the right to point out the false claim in question, using a fact from & not the whole paper, with someone then falsely inferring that he used the whole paper to support his position & that he didn't therefore understand or read said paper?

[acutube50]

@steam0001 Who is Al Gore? Well Al Gore is a former V.P. of the U.S.

So, not a scientist? And you are getting all rather heated trying to demonstrate that one non-scientist and otherwise non-entity is disproving another. And from that you leap to the conclusion that the whole of decades of work and investigation by thousands of actual scientists is wrong? You're an idiot.

[christo930]

I don't really like the polar bear argument too much. For one, they are at the top of the food chain, plankton would be more important. But the other reason is if we want to help polar bears, maybe we should just stop shooting them?

[snakeguy76]

I watched thses videos along with Moncktons 500 part rebuttal. Monckton seems to ignore some of the graphs Abraham brings up and includes stuff that made no sense. In particular the "Mediaeval"warming period which is where Abraham clearly did his homework and Monckton justs gripes about nonsense.

The whole debate seems a waste for both parties. Denialists will hail Monckton regardless.

[JerezJulio]

wow what a kick to the Ass of Lord Monkton.

Of all of the wackjob around this is one of the most dangerous, because for some reason the Tea Party believe that all the woowoo he say when he talk on conservative outlet, is Tea Party science to them. Him, Dr Michael Beige, Williams Dempsey, David Berlinsky, and Stephen C. Meyer are the scums snake oil salesman's of academia.

Scenties should check when they give this ass talk misrepresenting other papers and confront them on site .

[steam0001]

Right then. The original video /watch?v=stij8sUybx0 time mark 24:30, this video 6:32, & is rebut by /watch?v=cO1Q3Npa2tk.

Interesting that Abraham fails to mention that the IPCC stated that they don't expect the ice sheets to melt for several thousands of years. Tsk tsk.

[SubTachyon]

University of St.Thomas? :o

[dondude69]

Put 'Lord' in front of your name and "poof"-Instant Expert!

[steam0001]

Why are you posting this here? Abraham had already post this to youtube & taken it down because he couldn't make changes to a post video. Henceforth the use of a web based slide show. Easier to correct your errors & a lot of them he did make.

This has already been refuted by Monckton. Right here on youtube. Not on so web based slide show which he could change on a whim. Just look up Monckton refutes Abraham. It is on the cfact channel. Or look to the right side of your screen you might see them

[steam0001]

there.

[WaxItYourself]

@steam0001 Monckton's response was a joke. all he basically stated, outside of the degradation of his opponent, was that he didn't say what Abraham stated he said which is an outright lie. Monckton is a complete tool and has no formal training in atmospheric physics. He is a journalist.

[djarm67]

@steam0001 Viewers please note: CFACT is funded by exxonmobil

[steam0001]

@djarm67 So? Either what they are saying is true or it is not regardless of who funds them.

Do you know how most of big oils response is to "climate change" is? Can't beat them join them. Case in point BP, you know the idiots who polluted the Gulf, is big into alternative energy. There advantage in doing so is that most alternative energy is subsidized, & in the mean while the oil they do have in the ground goes up in value as we fail to look for more. The profits keep rolling in.

[djarm67]

@steam0001 The question you need to ask yourself is "why" would exxonmobil fund an organisation such as CFACT? It is true that exxonmobil would have a huge hit on it's profits if there was any serious effort on a global level towards carbon emmission reduction. This would bring into question the motive for the funding of climate change denialist organisations such as CFACT by companies such as Koch Industries and exxonmobil when Monckton etc are repeatedly shown to misrepresent the research.

[steam0001]

@djarm67 I have watched programs on PBS that have been sponsored by Exxon. I guess therefore we cannot trust anything on PBS.

This is were a classical education like Monckton has, gives him the advantage of proper philosophical understanding of how to determine truth. If you say cfact can't be trust because they're funded by Exxon then I say to you OK show me were they're lying. If you can't then what does it mater that they're funded by Exxon? If you can then how does it mater that they're ->

[steam0001]

funded by Exxon? When all is said & done they're either telling the truth or not. Funding has nothing to do with weather or not they're telling the truth of not. It is irrelevant.

[waltermh111]

@steam0001 it is quite relevent. Funding can lead the research and methods to give a certain answer.

Though rarely is that used to ignore something right away. People still thuroughly debunk them but its still good to be skeptical of anything that a company under attack funds.

If you want an example of how funding affects something, look at the cigarete companies funded researches and publications.

[steam0001]

@waltermh111 It is in view foolish to go strictly by who funds someone on weather or not they're telling the truth. The best you can say is that there funding makes me suspicious of their results we should have a very close look at their results to make sure they're correct.

What happened to big cigarette companies is they lied in their research & they got caught. They got caught because people came along, check their results & some came forward because of the guilt they felt. --->

[steam0001]

If you lie sooner or latter it is likely you will be caught in that lie.(bigger the lie the more likely you're to be caught in it) Sooner or later someone will redo the research, check the figures to make sure they add up, check the facts against your conclusions & if you are lying you will be caught.

In the case of a public statement criticizing a video someone might actually go back to the original video & realize that your criticizing something he didn't even say. Go figure that.

[waltermh111]

@steam0001 So because something on PBS is funded by them nothing on PBS can be trusted?

Your committing whats called a strawman. Nobody says what your saying

Also if the PBS program you refer to is research that affects policy/socety for or against their favor, then yes, be skeptical, but if its just a documentary, then no, it isnt too relevent, they have no reason to guide the documentary

Please think more, your trolling or playing devils advocate too hard. Its blocking your thinking skills

[steam0001]

@waltermh111 I was be sarcastic of course. If you go by funding on who lying or not that is what you get. Exxon funded it so it can't be trusted. No thank you. I go by the facts & if I still have question I will ask them or research them.

On flip side if we trust who funds them should we always trust the research? No. Again check the facts.

[synsei1]

Ok, Lord monckton has published zero peer reviewed paper but how dare you criticize someone who found a cure for aids and almost everything else (that evil scientists are suppressing for the NWO to sell condoms).

[ZangaroZen]

@DJarm67, great idea to mirror the John Abraham's presentation here on youTube. Talk about an epically brutal pwn'ing of Monckton.

[PaperSoapy]

This is damn brilliant. I love this.

[Lonewolf072]

I'd wonder how much John Abraham himself get for his research on this topic via govermental theft aka tax or other NGO sources. Beside the fact that Monckton fails epicly. Just to get the whole picture.

[gatorhighlights4]

Don't know how I didn't stumble upon your channel earlier. Excellent content!! Subscribed!

Monckton is a delusional lunatic. He's like the William Craig of AGW deniers; talks a lot, says fucking nothing.

[campasini]

@gatorhighlights4 comparing him to WLC is perfect.

[aliishaq11]

@gatorhighlights4 Maybe you'll get more information from John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, and one of the most knowledgeable Meteorologists in the world.

Trust me, us non-believers of Global Warming say the same thing about Al Gore, so I see where you're coming from.

[gatorhighlights4]

@aliishaq11 I'm well acquainted with John Coleman. Unfortunately, John Coleman is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. There are studies that show a large number of meteorologists who either do not "believe" in AGW or don't know enough to say one way or the other. That should not come as a surprise. Asking a meteorologist to weigh in on the complexities of climate change would be akin to asking a nurse to explain heart surgery.

Al Gore is irrelevant; science/scientists are all that matter.

[gatorhighlights4]

@aliishaq11 I'd just like to add: I like your taste in music but your taste in what is clearly intellectually dishonest analysis of evidence (confirmed by the fact that the publishers of the research Monckton references ALWAYS refute his interpretation when asked about it) leaves a lot to be desired.

You don't have to believe in AGW, I just ask that you not base that non-belief on Monckton (just like I don't base my acknowledgement of it on Gore). Monckton doesn't know shit; plain and simple.

[aliishaq11]

@gatorhighlights4 Ah why thank you. I like your taste in science, a fellow Lawrence Krauss fan I see. :'D

Yeah, I agree. Monckton wants to fit in with the scientists when he isn't one, though I have to say the same with Mr. Gore. They merely repeat verbatim what they hear without really understanding it, and that gives false context as well. Though I enjoy watching him speak as he tends to have a way with words that's quite entertaining. :P

[ndrthrdr1]

Monckton would make a good poster child for birth control.

[Alakrit]

@ndrthrdr1 More like retroactive abortion.