Indeed - we must ignore the FACTS because the decision has been made?
This man 'Ben' is not scientific at all.
Remember the EVIDENCE, FORGED and LOST by senior people at our main Universities in England? The same people who have financial reasons to support this scam. Many standing to benefit via the very organisations making billions of Pounds/dollars from the Global Warming Scam
Who would believe those who have been shown to lie to the public & who have a clear conflict of interests?
Monkton is a complete imbecile, unscrupulous and cynical and in the pay of big business. Go to You Tube and look up Potholer54's videos. He completely debunks ever stupid word ever uttered by that moron.
The suggestion here is that virtually all climate scientists and all the Science Academies of the World, ALL THIRTY-TWO OF THEM... are ALL involved in what?
They are suggesting the MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES !!!
@younot2funny B/c Monckton substantiates his arguments much more. He speaks with much more speificity than the broad strokes painted by many "climatologists." It is not necessarily a conspiracy; Monckton addresses this in another youtube video in relationship to government funding of basic research and the somewhat mob/cult mentality in the scientific community.
@younot2funny His examples about food diverted from actual consumed food instead into 'green energy' ethanol would demonstrate otherwise. It's a clear example of being concerned about the lives green policies are destroying.
Monckton only uses one persons' works to disprove anothers, again clearly demonstrated in this video. He names the authors of works he uses as evidence clearly, as opposed to the young opponent who speaks in platitudes and emotional urges. He doesnt name 1 authors evidence
2. Mr Justice Barton said the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change.
We need to have a BALANCED discussion on global warming. Justice Barton was BALANCED - but that BALANCE is not being reported and that BALANCE by him has also been missed by you too.
Any film without errors? Also some of the nine are not actual "errors" but "disputed" facts.
Take Justice Barton's finding about Katrina. That was one of the nine:
"The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming."
That makes Al Gore a great sinner?
It does not deny that global warming could well have been a FACTOR in Katrina.
Agreed. As you say 'Ben' talks in platitudes, whilst Monckton has done intensive research in this & come to conclusion that 'Climate Change', as presented to us, is a scam
We should distrust the scientific community who have been found over & over to have forged, fabricated & 'lost' the evidence. Why would they do this? It is not difficult to identify the conflicts of interest
These falsifications have involved senior people in our top universities (England) and NASA in USA
@younot2funny Start with the IPCC. Their report with thousands of supported scientist authors. Dozens of scientists who do not support the report, often they had been approached to just edit, review or make submissions that were not used, were named as supporters when they were not. Many had to take the IPCC to court to remove their names, unsuccessfully.
Al Gore's movie - UK Supreme Court ruled the movie to be too factually inaccurate to be used in schools.
Don't forget, every molecule in all that snow HAS to have absorbed the energy of vaporization... destruction by flooding and collapsing roofs is merely the latent heat of condensation turned into mechanical energy.
@bernzeppi Yep a typical argument from a Global warming supporter. I'm very sorry you are unable to rationally engage in conversation with some one who disagrees with you.
@TBOTSS I totally dismantle Monckton Madness and that is all you can manage????
Try this:
abcnews . go . com/blogs/technology/2012/02/1 9-mile-crack-in-antarctic-glac ier/
and I know it's hard for some of you guys who live in the plumbing age, not only can we directly image CO2 via satellite, NASA can tell who is making it.
@bernzeppi My fault but considering you shared the links for Potholer54 series debunking Moncktons crap and think you've got me wrong. What I was doing was sarcastically answering UKInfoWarriors dumb statement "CO2 does not cause global warming, there is no correlation." with "Only the correlation which has been studied for the last 180 years :)"
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th ...
NASA - NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
G.M MacDonald et al
"Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the MWP or the Holocene Thermal Maximum ( 10000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position."
@frolly1000 well said. That socialist interviewer is try to hush Monkton and you are right. Mcneil is just a repeating record. I am actually sick of this bs. i think i"ll go burn 100 ltrs of petrol in my v8 pick up to increase my carbon foot print.
@imortalsappy I thought we were having a discussion on science, but since I question the politicized agenda, in which a religion has cloaked itself as science - abandoning the core reasoning skills that make science effective - opting for a blind panic in fear of a "Change" which may be much less than purported, in which one volcanic eruption pumps more CO2 etc. into the air than 1000 years of human activity. - In stating a preference for scientific accuracy I am an "Idiot" - conversation over.
Plants are the primary staple in the food chain - they need the Carbon in CO2 to build everything from complex sugars to DNA and RNA - and they give the oxygen - to us.
wow Ben has 150 years of "understanding." Funny....I thought climate change existed longer than 150 years!!! Why don't you take the Richard Lindzen who is the world's leading scientist in this area.... but Kochie is a cockhead regardless.
@checkyoursources So you don't believe the world was created in 7 days as most creationists like yourself but just in the last 150 years? Well we mightn't agree on the science but I think we can agree on Kochie in general? :-)
@checkyoursources The point is that you ARE religious! You have a new brand of church called AGW. You don't DARE question dogma and Al Gore is infallible. You have a faith branded as Gaia. Why don't you like religion? Is it because 4,000,000,000 people believe in it and you want to be different? If you're an atheist I say you're a liar because atheism doesn't exist. Simply....it does not exist. Ask Blaise Paschal.
@MikkkkyB Actually I use evidence to assess what is the most likely explanation for an observation. In the case of AGW, it happens to be the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. I would rather the warming had a natural explanation but it currently doesn't according to the avilable evidence. Sorry to burst your assumptive bubble but "Religion" has nothing to do with me :)
@checkyoursources You say "religion" has nothing to do with your belief? Then why don't you question the dogma, or high priests of AGW more? FOr example your stats on 1970's to now are total crap; even the IPCC admits that we could've only had an impact since the mid to late 80s (if true at all but you believe it without doubt you religious zealot you!) You talk about "available evidence" but u obviously haven't read each of the 4 assessments of the IPCC (which have changed each time)
@MikkkkyB 1) it's not "belief" as that implies that there is no evidence for my views. 2) yiu incorrectly said: "even the IPCC admits that we could've only had an impact since the mid to late 80s" What the IPCC actually says: IPCC AR4: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." Next.
@checkyoursources Yes its funny how each consecutive AR report becomes less diaphanous and points more to nature than mankind. Do you believe a theory devised by a guy called Darwin? Survival of the fittest?? If you believe his theory (which I do) then why don't we roll the dice and see who survives? If mankind is wiped out, then so be it! That's evolution. 99% of any kind of life that has ever existed on Earth no longer does; that is, life is always changing, wiped out and evolving.
@MikkkkyB You admit then that you would rather board a plane with a 10% chance of being correct and flying (namely natural events caused all the warming) rather than my plane that has a 90% plus chance (that humans are the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's) of being correct?
AGW (like evolution by natural selection) explains the observations best based on the evidence at hand.
@PrairleDogged How is naming the point when AGW effects first observed as a dominant forcing "cherry picking"?!
p.s. Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans as we have only had an effect since the 1970's as explained to you many times before.
Hi Tech versus proxy record to tenths of a decimal place !!!
Get real checkyoursources you know too well that the empirical record is not of high enough resolution to determine such minute natural variations ~ you need to look to treelines and past glacial retreats to see we have been there before and no matter how many times you claim that those indicators are not important the damning facts don't go away.
@PrairleDogged What you have apparently overlooked is that AGW has only been the best explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. As stated: Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans because no natural factor suggested by people like yourself fit the warming data better than AGW. You still apparently incorrectly believe that because one thing caused a change in the past, it could ONLY be the same thing that causes a change later.
Best explanations are not exactly a basis to bankrupt counties on are they !!
If the past warmer periods did not bring down a cataclysmic ending of the world why should you predict one now?
Mammoth are being uncovered frozen in Siberia with grass in their mouths if there was no permafrost there when they were grazing contently it kind of pours cold water on your melting causing massive releases of Methane bringing doom to earth doesn't it?
@PrairleDogged "Best explanations are not exactly a basis to bankrupt counties" Countries bankrupted themselves on their own, fossil fuel prices will rise, what reason is there not to encourage renewables?.
if the concensus on cancer by scientists was that it could be reduced with a certain drug i.e. their "best explanation", would you honestly turn them down for what a newspaper or fox news says instead?!
p.s. the warming we could produce will be hotter than when mammoths were around.
If I were you Zippy I would change dealers as that last batch you mainlined has scorched your dumpling ~ you are a shining example to onlookers as to the dangerous side of hard drugs ~ when or if you ever come out of this haze hip learn from the drivel you've polluted this video with ~ have an ice day.
@checkyoursources Um your analogous reference doesn't quite work?? WTF? It is called Eco-Libertarianism (my theory) and it exists everywhere around the world in what is called "nature." The owl that ate the slow mouse, the shark that ate the diver, etc... Let it be. If mankind is wiped out by "CATASTROPHIC" (to be said with balls) AGW then so be it. I'm not explaining past events but positing a theory for future events; let Darwin reign....he has for 5,000,000,000 years. Why not now?
@MikkkkyB Surely if we have the capability to slow or reduce the harmful effects of AGW then it makes sense to do so, otherwise we are just along for the ride. The other ethical reason for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels is the air pollution from it that prematurely kills up to 2 million every year.
@checkyoursources Have u read Darwin? WE R just along for the ride; that's all folks. When u watch a nature film and u c that poor seal just about to be eaten by a shark, all u wanna do is reach out and save him...but nature and evolution are cruel and cold pragmatists. Evolution is king and it will continue with or without us (or whales). I enjoy debating you and think you're a smart guy. Serious. But UK is pulling back from its 2020 commitments, Canada withdrawn; who's left? China $1 per tonne
@MikkkkyB Many countries are concerned about their debts but this doesn't mean they aren't concerned about AGW. I would rather try and reduce human damage to themselves and the environment than sit back and watch it go wrong.
@checkyoursources My Eco Libertarianism says if sperm whales die cos they can't handle the increased CO2 in oceans then bad luck for not evolving. Same to any other species....including humans! If humans cause the extinction of an animal that could have one day cured cancer; then bad luck to humans (because they were the fittest but not the smartest)...its a great theory that says "sit back and enjoy the show." If Gaia (as flannery puts it) exists; let her determine the fate. Who knows... :-)
@checkyoursources And that is why you are also spot on (without being a postmodern relativist about it all). You see, in ur fight to be the fittest u may help urself, or others, prevail 2 b the fittest & survive! :-) However, evolution is funny and u may also do urself in? If oceans rise, build bigger sea walls. If temperatures rise, grow more food. If storms get worse...move! All the while remember that if an X+ class coronal mass ejection (CME) comes from the sun there will be no life. Enjoy!
I would rather act to reduce environmental damage in the next 100 years than concern myself with events that might not happen in 1 billion. Why deal with consequences when you can deal with causes to stop the consequences in the first place?
@checkyoursources Um....1859 actually. There was also a massive one in Canada I think in the 1980's; knocked out power to most of Northern Canada, mid winter, for over a week...plenty of people died. Class X CME's hit us every month, its the bigger ones you need to worry about. We are basically living inside the Sun's atmosphere; trust me, astronomy is my expertise or google it if u don't. IPCC says 0.4 increase in 100 years; I can live with that. 1 CME, I'm outta here! Just like a powerball! :)
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
2035 or 2350. Its still melting. Maybe global warming is happening at a slower pace than we thought. But its still warming. Monckton is the real fraud. Pure bullshit dribbels out of his mouth
@NatDemUK so when will they be "coming" again? Doesnt that mean that the earth is warming if they are "going" at the moment? When will this cooling happen so that they are "going" ?
@ollywatkins They come back when the temperatures start to drop, which is caused by the activity of the sun in relation to the orbit of the Earth to the sun. Temperatures do not go up because of Carbon Dioxide, that is just a gas which goes out into the ozone layer and then back into the ecological environment in which the plants breathe it in and expire oxygen for us, that is all.
all I saw was a scientist refuting a politician on issues of science monckton pointed out a insignificant flaw in a report and the scientist talked about how insignificant it was and showed the overall data shows in favour of climate change. I honestly think this guy seems to appear good to people is partly because he has a british accent. I tend to trust scientists on issues of science over politicians so call me strange.
@coldwarkid007 (And everyone else) BTW, you might also check out the impending MARKEY-INHOFE debate, prompted by a suggestion of Ralph Nader's. At least Markey has the BALLS to debate - unlike that snake-oil salesman Gore (and his Democrat Goon-Squad). 'Flat-earthers' ? Tell me about it........................... Google - and learn ! Or die of ignorance. Because Death (for hundreds of millions) IS The Game here. Conspiracy ? You'd better believe it, Pal !
Please watch this dissection of Monckton's credibility and claims about global warming. If you are inclined to believe Monckton you'll be likely to dismiss it, but please watch it to know about criticisms directed towards him. It's made by a journalist with a science degree in geology. watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&feature=BFa&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&lf=results_main
Wow ... this Lord Monckton fellow seems to talk a whole lot of sense -- especially when compared to the generalistic drivel emitted by the opposition in this "debate"!
This lying "Dr" "climate change" is full of bull shit. We all know that the Climate Scam is just a scam for "big government" socialists. Millions of people have died because of the nazi climate scammers. It is time for normal people to vote for alternatives that put these nazi-scentists were they belong! In jail for genocide!
@ZimmermanHound you are a sick person, these scientist are trying to make us have a better place to live even tho we may not be the cause of climate change doesnt mean we should still burn millions of tones on carbon and other chemicals into the air that we breath. please tell me one reason how these scientist are (nazi) maybe you should look into the meaning of nazi you may find your self to be one.
Or - to put it another way - Monckton (together with REAL scientists such as Lindzen, Corbyn, Morner, Gray, Akosofu etc etc) has undermined your quasi-religious belief system with observable, provable, scientific FACT.
Solution ?
Find yourself a new religion - and stop slandering those who wish to wake you up from your self-induced dream state
Or find yourself a new cause (eg the Pursuit of Truth)..
@marvinc999 legally actionable !!!! what type of fool are you. 'quasi-religious belief' LMAO. The vast majority of the scientific world completely disagree with Monkton (who is not a climate scientist) and his band of fellow flat earthers.
If you are really interested in the pursuit of truth and not wild hysterical conspiracy theories you could do worse that check out you tube user - potholer54 and Greenman3610 - see Monkton totally debunked
Perhaps your New Age/Eco-Fascist sources also 'debunk' the likes of Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Piers Corbyn, Nils Axel Morner etc - to say nothing of the 31,000 scientists who signed the Manhattan Declaration ?
Oh - and what about the Planet ITSELF - which seems NOT to be supporting the Playstation 'science' so beloved of your masters ?
Global warming is pure globalist swindle to facilitate world government via their favorite method. Fear. Say no to the U.N.. End the Felony Reserve. End state sponsored corporate protection and say goodbye to Wall Street. End phony money and your very real wealth paying the debts. End the self-fulfilling military and intelligence industrial complexes. Say no to divisive ideals such as Marxism/zionism/feminism and most of all statism. Time to cast of the parasites clinging to the the human race.
This dude (not monkton) is an idiot,especially since we recently proved the speed of light can be broken. Why is it I often hear a lot of stupid shit from ozzies?
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
@checkyoursources "Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began" OMG REALLY SO THE LAST 200 YEARS OF MODERN RECORDS WOW TOO BAD YOUR MISSING OVER 4.54 BILLION YEARS OF DATA haha nice try at complete scare tactic retard modern records show absolutally nothing on this subject, not even a blip/dot on a chart
Yeah the world is decided. There are people who believe it because it's been PROVED and there are people who do not because they don't understand it or don't want to believe it for some other reason. On and Monckton has never written a peer-review paper; he's not a scientist of any kind, he;s a KNOWN liar and fraud; even Parliament have warned him to stop pretending he's a member of the Lords.
PEOPLE PEOPLE YOU FORGOT ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING AND THAT IS THAT GLOBAL WORMING AND AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH WAS A FUCKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE. NOW SINCE WHEN SCIENCE AND HISTORY CAN BE RESEARCHED THROUGH A FUCKING MOVIE. WHICH BY THE WAY GOT AL GORE AN OSCAR. SO WHAT IS THE OSCAR NOW A DAYS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS THE NOBEL PRIZE ? MOVIES ARE FICTION JUST LIKE HIS BULLSHIT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! HE WILL NOT DEBATE ANYONE ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD AND THIS MAKES HIM A CORPORATE FRAUD
@torx8 Really? Well, his understanding of the subject(global warming) and physics seems below average. Has he published a paper subject to peer review supported by solid scientific evidence?no. Has he been popularizing his views as a way to push forward a political agenda? most definitely yes.
@tacticalmastermind I have done some reading and I have found "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review" Notice that key word there, not. So unless you are confused, he has not written any peer-reviewed article. Perhaps you should fact check people instead of blindly following what they say, dipshit.
@Ballero0 Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
Even Al Gore admits its all B.S. The jig is up, we know the truth and who is lying to us. Listen to Al Gore's rant at the Aspen Institute. The temperature goes up and then the CO2 follows.
Just proves you don't need to be a scientist have an understanding of what's going on. The whole IPCC debate is about a 400% variability in predictions, that's how accurate the science experts are. Then if you really want to know what's happening in the present, we have real data that says CO2 is constantly rising about 1-2.00 ppm each year and over the last 50 years the temperature has risen and fallen many times which shows the temperature is not driven by CO2.
monckton leading skeptic LOL awesome credibility, fancy putting a journo who masters in misinformation against a real scientist.. anyone who believes monckton should take up smoking because honestly, it doesnt cause cancer haha
What is now labled carbon tax, the whole process is a scam. The Australian Government are ruled by a global shadow government, which is why gilliard is pushing this shit so much. If she and her party, the greens too dont do what there told, thier lives will not be rosy and all the secret benifits promised to them will dissapear. Worse case they will be dispatched. Global warming is a scam.
I can't express how much I loathe Ben McNeil: a SMUG little worm of a (research) fellow... "Are you a climate scientist?" "It's like debating the laws of physics." Seriously... people that stupid... I can't even express what an utter bastard and asshole this pretentious young man is. ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!! Everything that is wrong with the climatologist viewpoint in right there in this little shit.
@mlawren7, Only a TOTAL toser would say ALL Scientists are wrong and an uneducated elitist, stuck up, religious fundamentalist like Monckton was right!
Oh but wait!!, thats right you have a tiny number of scientists on the big oil, industry paylist that supply fraudulant data to Monckton, ummm..... sooo your saying they are wrong too?
@mlawren7, YOU, calling ME a fucking moron!, that is funny!
Well if you had done, then at least you would have some idea what your talking about, you know big words like Thermodynamics! (need to borrow my dictionary?)
If someone was a bumbling fool before their degree, chances are they will be afterwoods, no different with a trade or any other area of life. Like you!, you'll be a shithead till the day you die most likely!
Carl Sagan, Einstein, Farraday, Watt, Volta, all morons?
@1BustedMyth You must be high on something - I never used the word 'thermodynamics', and no I don't need your heavily annotated dictionary. Nothing you've replied to me is even vaguely relent, so please, if you can't stop listening to the voices in your head, at least stop telling me what they say.
@mlawren7, Stop being such a dopey prick, your just making a fool out of yourself, at least go reasearch what the hell you are talking about! that does not mean read more denier websites!
Theres this thing you can get from a place called a Library called a book!
Why is that almost everyone of you deniers or skeptics is dumb enough to enter the debate without even the most basic understanding of science.
Idiot!
A good skeptic does their homework! before openning their mouth!
@1BustedMyth Canna you help me my book-learnin'?! Can you show me to use the libary misser? I member my teacher tell us how the apple fall on misser Newton's head, and he done figure out how gravity keep all God's creatures onna groun...
@1BustedMyth So the best, most important and seminal scientific paper I should read that proves anthropogenic climate change would be... what? See, because all those names you dropped before, they have theories/laws/formulas that actually DO have a consensus surrounding them. Climate change science is nowhere near that level.
Here's a name drop... Nasa.. you know, those people that put Humans on the Moon (you do believe we went I hope?) well they give AGW over 95% probability in a formal position.
Monckton, being a mathematician may even be able to grasp that probability.. maybe.. depends how big the cheque is I'm guessing.
Here you go again asking advice from a non scientist, do you not know how to find the papers yourself.. even on yt?....
@1BustedMyth Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
@mlawren7, All those "names that I dropped before" most of those people had to put up with ridicule by small minded people like you and at the time their ideas were radical, seems you don't know the history of science well.
Perhaps you should take the time to find out what you are talking about. The Catholic church started by murdering scientists after torturing them for weeks or months, then they were just ridiculed, both Darwin and Faraday treated badly by your type.. arrogant
@mlawren7, Your parady of a person with english as a second language talking to a teacher and I'm guessing you have a white one in mind, just shows you to be a pompus arrogant asshole.
Lets face it, you think your better then me in your twisted little mind, so anything I say will never get a decent pondering by a neutral open mind anyway. To me this is a serious subject but to you its just another oppertunity to fuck people around and talk down to them.
McNeil says that Australia will invest in new green technologies, but what has happened?
McNeil has no authority to say what the Australian government will or will not invest in nor in what areas they will investigate in the way of green technologies.
Likelihood is real that nothing material will be done other than have what the global elite want--their slaves to be carbon taxed heavily, to reduce freedoms, & avoid elite taking any of the rightly deserved blame for their monopolistic choices.
This has been flagged as spam show
Indeed - we must ignore the FACTS because the decision has been made?
This man 'Ben' is not scientific at all.
Remember the EVIDENCE, FORGED and LOST by senior people at our main Universities in England? The same people who have financial reasons to support this scam. Many standing to benefit via the very organisations making billions of Pounds/dollars from the Global Warming Scam
Who would believe those who have been shown to lie to the public & who have a clear conflict of interests?
explorer2101 1 hour ago
Lord Monckton Kicked some ass here. Keep getting the facts out there buddy we appreciate it!
Dodger481 6 days ago
Comment removed
TheBarry7777 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol at Ben's face at 4:12 and onward.
muffdriver69 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
muffdriver69 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
muffdriver69 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Monkton is a complete imbecile, unscrupulous and cynical and in the pay of big business. Go to You Tube and look up Potholer54's videos. He completely debunks ever stupid word ever uttered by that moron.
andygray 3 weeks ago
Typical, Ben McNeil is a "fraudster".
So...
Why should I believe that Moncton is not?
The suggestion here is that virtually all climate scientists and all the Science Academies of the World, ALL THIRTY-TWO OF THEM... are ALL involved in what?
They are suggesting the MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES !!!
A WORLD GOVERNMENT !!!
This is MAD MAD MAD !!!
younot2funny 4 weeks ago
@younot2funny All in for the big bucks and the promotions, hows that for an answer to your question?
slcschaser 2 weeks ago
@younot2funny B/c Monckton substantiates his arguments much more. He speaks with much more speificity than the broad strokes painted by many "climatologists." It is not necessarily a conspiracy; Monckton addresses this in another youtube video in relationship to government funding of basic research and the somewhat mob/cult mentality in the scientific community.
BosPercussion 1 week ago
@BosPercussion
Moncton's argument is about the money, not about the science at all - pseudo-science is not real science.
He only seems to be interested in slandering other people's good names.
I don't think he is a nice person at all.
I have friends at the ANU who have been slandered by Moncton, he has never met them and yet he says things that are clearly untrue.
You want to believe Moncton? Then you choose to believe those lies.
Moncton is only concerned about money. He says so himself.
younot2funny 1 week ago
@younot2funny His examples about food diverted from actual consumed food instead into 'green energy' ethanol would demonstrate otherwise. It's a clear example of being concerned about the lives green policies are destroying.
Monckton only uses one persons' works to disprove anothers, again clearly demonstrated in this video. He names the authors of works he uses as evidence clearly, as opposed to the young opponent who speaks in platitudes and emotional urges. He doesnt name 1 authors evidence
Siegetower 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siegetower
Just to set the record straight:
1. I am not here to defend Al Gore.
2. Mr Justice Barton said the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change.
We need to have a BALANCED discussion on global warming. Justice Barton was BALANCED - but that BALANCE is not being reported and that BALANCE by him has also been missed by you too.
Any film without errors? Also some of the nine are not actual "errors" but "disputed" facts.
Again MISREPORTING is RAMPANT.
younot2funny 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siegetower
Take Justice Barton's finding about Katrina. That was one of the nine:
"The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming."
That makes Al Gore a great sinner?
It does not deny that global warming could well have been a FACTOR in Katrina.
Is it wrong to point out that IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
Do you want CENSORSHIP?
younot2funny 23 hours ago
@Siegetower
Agreed. As you say 'Ben' talks in platitudes, whilst Monckton has done intensive research in this & come to conclusion that 'Climate Change', as presented to us, is a scam
We should distrust the scientific community who have been found over & over to have forged, fabricated & 'lost' the evidence. Why would they do this? It is not difficult to identify the conflicts of interest
These falsifications have involved senior people in our top universities (England) and NASA in USA
explorer2101 52 minutes ago
@younot2funny Start with the IPCC. Their report with thousands of supported scientist authors. Dozens of scientists who do not support the report, often they had been approached to just edit, review or make submissions that were not used, were named as supporters when they were not. Many had to take the IPCC to court to remove their names, unsuccessfully.
Al Gore's movie - UK Supreme Court ruled the movie to be too factually inaccurate to be used in schools.
Most of their evidence is innacurate.
Siegetower 1 day ago
Energy of vaporization = 2.5MJ per litre.
That is the same amount of energy it takes to boil the water.
Even Monckton "science adviser to Thatcher" must acknowledge that for it is standard physics.
So, deniers, all that snow???
It starts off as boiled water.
Doh!
Back to the S-bend all you plumber-scientists.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hard for some of you guys who live in the plumbing age, not only can we directly image CO2 via satellite, NASA can tell who is making it.
watch?v=r2yg-KcOnWo&feature=g- all-u&context=G20b0f8dFAAAAAAA ACAA
Don't forget, every molecule in all that snow HAS to have absorbed the energy of vaporization... destruction by flooding and collapsing roofs is merely the latent heat of condensation turned into mechanical energy.
Oh well.... back to the S-bend.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
brilliant argument. love it. bring it on lord googly, you shit all over gore.
samantaray 1 month ago
18 mile crack in glacier
abcnews . go . com/blogs/technology/2012/02/19-mile-crack-in-antarctic-glacier/
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@bernzeppi
Calving Glaciers crack hippie melting ones ? well you dickhead they MELT !!!
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
And Mockton is STILL full of shit:
watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
and when he responds from the snivelling 'watts up with that' website he is EVEN MORE full of shit
watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
even contradicting himself showing himself to be full of shit
watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA
The only people more full of shit are his followers who are full of second hand shit... YOU!
Best thing you guys are capable of is stirring the shit...
Stupid 2nd hand shit stirrers... that's all you are!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@bernzeppi Yep a typical argument from a Global warming supporter. I'm very sorry you are unable to rationally engage in conversation with some one who disagrees with you.
TBOTSS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TBOTSS I totally dismantle Monckton Madness and that is all you can manage????
Try this:
abcnews . go . com/blogs/technology/2012/02/1 9-mile-crack-in-antarctic-glac ier/
and I know it's hard for some of you guys who live in the plumbing age, not only can we directly image CO2 via satellite, NASA can tell who is making it.
watch?v=r2yg-KcOnWo&feature=g- all-u&context=G20b0f8dFAAAAAAA ACAA
and
kentchemistry . com/links/Energy/HeatVaporization . htm
See? H2O has to be boiled to vaporize ;-)
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@TBOTSS sooooo BOTSHIT... it's back to the S-bend for you!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
Monckton is so full of shit
watch?v=ueOxlERWXxs
and
watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
and
watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
and
watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
bernzeppi 1 month ago
"CO2 does not cause global warming, there is no correlation." Only the correlation which has been studied for the last 180 years :)
Richard482 1 month ago
@Richard482 You are full of shit!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bernzeppi My fault but considering you shared the links for Potholer54 series debunking Moncktons crap and think you've got me wrong. What I was doing was sarcastically answering UKInfoWarriors dumb statement "CO2 does not cause global warming, there is no correlation." with "Only the correlation which has been studied for the last 180 years :)"
Richard482 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck monkton
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th ...
NASA - NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
livingproofof 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
G.M MacDonald et al
"Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the MWP or the Holocene Thermal Maximum ( 10000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position."
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events James .A. Marusek'
.
Google the above and dry your legs.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
@frolly1000 well said. That socialist interviewer is try to hush Monkton and you are right. Mcneil is just a repeating record. I am actually sick of this bs. i think i"ll go burn 100 ltrs of petrol in my v8 pick up to increase my carbon foot print.
morphicification 1 month ago
@imortalsappy I thought we were having a discussion on science, but since I question the politicized agenda, in which a religion has cloaked itself as science - abandoning the core reasoning skills that make science effective - opting for a blind panic in fear of a "Change" which may be much less than purported, in which one volcanic eruption pumps more CO2 etc. into the air than 1000 years of human activity. - In stating a preference for scientific accuracy I am an "Idiot" - conversation over.
ObiWanShinobi1 1 month ago
Plants are the primary staple in the food chain - they need the Carbon in CO2 to build everything from complex sugars to DNA and RNA - and they give the oxygen - to us.
ObiWanShinobi1 2 months ago
Australia is facing a CO2 Shortage,not long after we legislated for a CO2 tax. It must be working.
auschin 2 months ago
wow Ben has 150 years of "understanding." Funny....I thought climate change existed longer than 150 years!!! Why don't you take the Richard Lindzen who is the world's leading scientist in this area.... but Kochie is a cockhead regardless.
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB I suggest you look up "lindzen illusions" on skeptical science, the only thing he leads is imbeciles.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources So you don't believe the world was created in 7 days as most creationists like yourself but just in the last 150 years? Well we mightn't agree on the science but I think we can agree on Kochie in general? :-)
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB Nope, I don't believe in sky fairies, not sure where you got the impression that I would be religious/superstitious?
By the way what specifically do you think is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's if not AGW?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources The point is that you ARE religious! You have a new brand of church called AGW. You don't DARE question dogma and Al Gore is infallible. You have a faith branded as Gaia. Why don't you like religion? Is it because 4,000,000,000 people believe in it and you want to be different? If you're an atheist I say you're a liar because atheism doesn't exist. Simply....it does not exist. Ask Blaise Paschal.
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB Actually I use evidence to assess what is the most likely explanation for an observation. In the case of AGW, it happens to be the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. I would rather the warming had a natural explanation but it currently doesn't according to the avilable evidence. Sorry to burst your assumptive bubble but "Religion" has nothing to do with me :)
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources You say "religion" has nothing to do with your belief? Then why don't you question the dogma, or high priests of AGW more? FOr example your stats on 1970's to now are total crap; even the IPCC admits that we could've only had an impact since the mid to late 80s (if true at all but you believe it without doubt you religious zealot you!) You talk about "available evidence" but u obviously haven't read each of the 4 assessments of the IPCC (which have changed each time)
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB 1) it's not "belief" as that implies that there is no evidence for my views. 2) yiu incorrectly said: "even the IPCC admits that we could've only had an impact since the mid to late 80s" What the IPCC actually says: IPCC AR4: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." Next.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Yes its funny how each consecutive AR report becomes less diaphanous and points more to nature than mankind. Do you believe a theory devised by a guy called Darwin? Survival of the fittest?? If you believe his theory (which I do) then why don't we roll the dice and see who survives? If mankind is wiped out, then so be it! That's evolution. 99% of any kind of life that has ever existed on Earth no longer does; that is, life is always changing, wiped out and evolving.
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB You admit then that you would rather board a plane with a 10% chance of being correct and flying (namely natural events caused all the warming) rather than my plane that has a 90% plus chance (that humans are the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's) of being correct?
AGW (like evolution by natural selection) explains the observations best based on the evidence at hand.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Here you go again ~ 1970's !!!! cherry picking.
Try the last 2000 years it has more of a representative span to it.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
@PrairleDogged How is naming the point when AGW effects first observed as a dominant forcing "cherry picking"?!
p.s. Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans as we have only had an effect since the 1970's as explained to you many times before.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Hi Tech versus proxy record to tenths of a decimal place !!!
Get real checkyoursources you know too well that the empirical record is not of high enough resolution to determine such minute natural variations ~ you need to look to treelines and past glacial retreats to see we have been there before and no matter how many times you claim that those indicators are not important the damning facts don't go away.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
@PrairleDogged What you have apparently overlooked is that AGW has only been the best explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. As stated: Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans because no natural factor suggested by people like yourself fit the warming data better than AGW. You still apparently incorrectly believe that because one thing caused a change in the past, it could ONLY be the same thing that causes a change later.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checky
Best explanations are not exactly a basis to bankrupt counties on are they !!
If the past warmer periods did not bring down a cataclysmic ending of the world why should you predict one now?
Mammoth are being uncovered frozen in Siberia with grass in their mouths if there was no permafrost there when they were grazing contently it kind of pours cold water on your melting causing massive releases of Methane bringing doom to earth doesn't it?
.
The past is not politically motivated is it.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairleDogged "Best explanations are not exactly a basis to bankrupt counties" Countries bankrupted themselves on their own, fossil fuel prices will rise, what reason is there not to encourage renewables?.
if the concensus on cancer by scientists was that it could be reduced with a certain drug i.e. their "best explanation", would you honestly turn them down for what a newspaper or fox news says instead?!
p.s. the warming we could produce will be hotter than when mammoths were around.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@PrairleDogged doggyshit... where are you, you snivelling little turd?
You cut and run as soon a you are shown to be the brainless twat you are!
I'm huntin' you down you second rate piece of shit!
You are not getting away that easily!
G'warn run you slimy arse dribble!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@bernzeppi
If I were you Zippy I would change dealers as that last batch you mainlined has scorched your dumpling ~ you are a shining example to onlookers as to the dangerous side of hard drugs ~ when or if you ever come out of this haze hip learn from the drivel you've polluted this video with ~ have an ice day.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Um your analogous reference doesn't quite work?? WTF? It is called Eco-Libertarianism (my theory) and it exists everywhere around the world in what is called "nature." The owl that ate the slow mouse, the shark that ate the diver, etc... Let it be. If mankind is wiped out by "CATASTROPHIC" (to be said with balls) AGW then so be it. I'm not explaining past events but positing a theory for future events; let Darwin reign....he has for 5,000,000,000 years. Why not now?
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB Surely if we have the capability to slow or reduce the harmful effects of AGW then it makes sense to do so, otherwise we are just along for the ride. The other ethical reason for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels is the air pollution from it that prematurely kills up to 2 million every year.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Have u read Darwin? WE R just along for the ride; that's all folks. When u watch a nature film and u c that poor seal just about to be eaten by a shark, all u wanna do is reach out and save him...but nature and evolution are cruel and cold pragmatists. Evolution is king and it will continue with or without us (or whales). I enjoy debating you and think you're a smart guy. Serious. But UK is pulling back from its 2020 commitments, Canada withdrawn; who's left? China $1 per tonne
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB Many countries are concerned about their debts but this doesn't mean they aren't concerned about AGW. I would rather try and reduce human damage to themselves and the environment than sit back and watch it go wrong.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources My Eco Libertarianism says if sperm whales die cos they can't handle the increased CO2 in oceans then bad luck for not evolving. Same to any other species....including humans! If humans cause the extinction of an animal that could have one day cured cancer; then bad luck to humans (because they were the fittest but not the smartest)...its a great theory that says "sit back and enjoy the show." If Gaia (as flannery puts it) exists; let her determine the fate. Who knows... :-)
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB I would rather use my brain to do something useful that just sit back but each to their own.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources And that is why you are also spot on (without being a postmodern relativist about it all). You see, in ur fight to be the fittest u may help urself, or others, prevail 2 b the fittest & survive! :-) However, evolution is funny and u may also do urself in? If oceans rise, build bigger sea walls. If temperatures rise, grow more food. If storms get worse...move! All the while remember that if an X+ class coronal mass ejection (CME) comes from the sun there will be no life. Enjoy!
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB What is the likelyhood of a CME?
How many have there been in recorded history?
I would rather act to reduce environmental damage in the next 100 years than concern myself with events that might not happen in 1 billion. Why deal with consequences when you can deal with causes to stop the consequences in the first place?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Um....1859 actually. There was also a massive one in Canada I think in the 1980's; knocked out power to most of Northern Canada, mid winter, for over a week...plenty of people died. Class X CME's hit us every month, its the bigger ones you need to worry about. We are basically living inside the Sun's atmosphere; trust me, astronomy is my expertise or google it if u don't. IPCC says 0.4 increase in 100 years; I can live with that. 1 CME, I'm outta here! Just like a powerball! :)
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@checkyoursources If you care at all about CME's why not subscribe to the daily sun weather provided by DrKStrong
watch?v=NWCY6eCdd6w&lc=eSCvsd8h55YEHqwuzIzDj796Ou2AkGNPak9-cW_1k7k&context=G279bbaeFAAAAAAAADAA&feature=g-all-c
Mostly he narrates the program for newbies but rgulars now interpret the data on their own.
There is no need to be wrong or guess...
DrKStrong is your own YT expert
bernzeppi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
checkyoursources 2 months ago
Lord Monckton the voice of reason VS Brainwashed Ben
TheRezarian 2 months ago
Monckton's ability to draw on facts instantly is very impressive
MrDaveyboy103 2 months ago
Don't look at wolrd cups they are trying to get you away from real informative videos!!!
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@4:30
' you are a climatologist ?'
you've got a degree in classic studies
chong890 2 months ago
he's talking about biofuels.. when was biofuels the only solution to CO2?
ollywatkins 2 months ago
2035 or 2350. Its still melting. Maybe global warming is happening at a slower pace than we thought. But its still warming. Monckton is the real fraud. Pure bullshit dribbels out of his mouth
ollywatkins 2 months ago
@ollywatkins Glaciers are not melting, they are coming and going.
NatDemUK 2 months ago
@NatDemUK sorry... but you are just plain wrong. Glaciers are melting. What is "coming and going" supposed to mean.
ollywatkins 2 months ago
@ollywatkins No, they are not melting, they have grown back. Glaciers melt and then they come back.
NatDemUK 2 months ago
@NatDemUK so when will they be "coming" again? Doesnt that mean that the earth is warming if they are "going" at the moment? When will this cooling happen so that they are "going" ?
ollywatkins 2 months ago
@ollywatkins They come back when the temperatures start to drop, which is caused by the activity of the sun in relation to the orbit of the Earth to the sun. Temperatures do not go up because of Carbon Dioxide, that is just a gas which goes out into the ozone layer and then back into the ecological environment in which the plants breathe it in and expire oxygen for us, that is all.
NatDemUK 2 months ago
@NatDemUK So by your logic, you then admit that warming has been happening in the last 100 years or so. (I feel like we are getting somewhere now)
ollywatkins 2 months ago
@ollywatkins By my logic the Earth warms and then it cools
NatDemUK 2 months ago
@NatDemUK so its warming now then..
ollywatkins 2 months ago
all I saw was a scientist refuting a politician on issues of science monckton pointed out a insignificant flaw in a report and the scientist talked about how insignificant it was and showed the overall data shows in favour of climate change. I honestly think this guy seems to appear good to people is partly because he has a british accent. I tend to trust scientists on issues of science over politicians so call me strange.
tommo1313 2 months ago
1:19 Monckton:"You're a fucking r-tard"
ITarantula 3 months ago
marvinc999 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch this dissection of Monckton's credibility and claims about global warming. If you are inclined to believe Monckton you'll be likely to dismiss it, but please watch it to know about criticisms directed towards him. It's made by a journalist with a science degree in geology. watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&feature=BFa&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&lf=results_main
jiin5993 3 months ago
Wow ... this Lord Monckton fellow seems to talk a whole lot of sense -- especially when compared to the generalistic drivel emitted by the opposition in this "debate"!
zendros 3 months ago
This lying "Dr" "climate change" is full of bull shit. We all know that the Climate Scam is just a scam for "big government" socialists. Millions of people have died because of the nazi climate scammers. It is time for normal people to vote for alternatives that put these nazi-scentists were they belong! In jail for genocide!
ZimmermanHound 3 months ago 2
@ZimmermanHound you are a sick person, these scientist are trying to make us have a better place to live even tho we may not be the cause of climate change doesnt mean we should still burn millions of tones on carbon and other chemicals into the air that we breath. please tell me one reason how these scientist are (nazi) maybe you should look into the meaning of nazi you may find your self to be one.
james1bella2 3 months ago
did that young fellow say green economy what sort of fantasy world is that man living in
vmgqie 3 months ago
Monckton is a fraud
coldwarkid007 3 months ago
@coldwarkid007
Or - to put it another way - Monckton (together with REAL scientists such as Lindzen, Corbyn, Morner, Gray, Akosofu etc etc) has undermined your quasi-religious belief system with observable, provable, scientific FACT.
Solution ?
Find yourself a new religion - and stop slandering those who wish to wake you up from your self-induced dream state
Or find yourself a new cause (eg the Pursuit of Truth)..
And BTW - your statement is legally actionable.
marvinc999 3 months ago
@marvinc999 legally actionable !!!! what type of fool are you. 'quasi-religious belief' LMAO. The vast majority of the scientific world completely disagree with Monkton (who is not a climate scientist) and his band of fellow flat earthers.
If you are really interested in the pursuit of truth and not wild hysterical conspiracy theories you could do worse that check out you tube user - potholer54 and Greenman3610 - see Monkton totally debunked
coldwarkid007 3 months ago
@coldwarkid007
"what type of fool are you...."
Just the sort of doltish reply I expected.
Perhaps your New Age/Eco-Fascist sources also 'debunk' the likes of Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Piers Corbyn, Nils Axel Morner etc - to say nothing of the 31,000 scientists who signed the Manhattan Declaration ?
Oh - and what about the Planet ITSELF - which seems NOT to be supporting the Playstation 'science' so beloved of your masters ?
Sleep, child.
One day, you WILL grow up.
marvinc999 3 months ago
Mock tore them up - good job
Nightverslonn 3 months ago
Global warming is pure globalist swindle to facilitate world government via their favorite method. Fear. Say no to the U.N.. End the Felony Reserve. End state sponsored corporate protection and say goodbye to Wall Street. End phony money and your very real wealth paying the debts. End the self-fulfilling military and intelligence industrial complexes. Say no to divisive ideals such as Marxism/zionism/feminism and most of all statism. Time to cast of the parasites clinging to the the human race.
teerexness 4 months ago
This dude (not monkton) is an idiot,especially since we recently proved the speed of light can be broken. Why is it I often hear a lot of stupid shit from ozzies?
Proteus6684 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@checkyoursources a well thought out refutaion of climate change skeptics, I wonder why youre comment got marked as spam.
tommo1313 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began" OMG REALLY SO THE LAST 200 YEARS OF MODERN RECORDS WOW TOO BAD YOUR MISSING OVER 4.54 BILLION YEARS OF DATA haha nice try at complete scare tactic retard modern records show absolutally nothing on this subject, not even a blip/dot on a chart
ANTICARBONTAX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets see.. exxon stooge verses nasa and navy data and 98% of climate scientist.. hmmmm.. thats a tough one
co2pirate 4 months ago
Monckton IS the "fraudster".
RedXlV 4 months ago
Monckton is the best! F wall St & their carbon taxes
ChristopherMonckton5 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah the world is decided. There are people who believe it because it's been PROVED and there are people who do not because they don't understand it or don't want to believe it for some other reason. On and Monckton has never written a peer-review paper; he's not a scientist of any kind, he;s a KNOWN liar and fraud; even Parliament have warned him to stop pretending he's a member of the Lords.
TheMogulmonster 4 months ago
That little boy on the left needs a good kick up the bum. He is either an evil scam artist or a complete fool. My money would be on the latter.
walenski2404 4 months ago
@walenski2404 Apparently you don't stay current with the news. Maybe you should look up some current information on the topic.
wentafew 4 months ago
@walenski2404" Global warming" is still currently a scam ,Sir. If you would like to be taxed for the air you breathe, then I feel very sorry for you!
walenski2404 4 months ago
This is why I never watch Sunrise.
310sucks 4 months ago
You got the wrong fraudster, duh.
patrickcorliss 4 months ago
lol at the kid behind them showing stuff to the camera XD
tootoo012 4 months ago
Monckton is NOT the actor that plays Borat... He is an actual stupid person.
craigthe3rd 4 months ago
@craigthe3rd and you are smarter than him because .... ? oh wait let me guess, because you fell for the fraudumentary "An Inconvenient Truth"!
torx8 4 months ago
@torx8 lmao... hey dumbass, go read some current news on the subject.
wentafew 4 months ago
Monckton is the actor that plays Borat, its a satire!
robojob 4 months ago
@robojob You missed the joke.
Flightlevel23 4 months ago
AGW is a SCAM!
yaahme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE PEOPLE YOU FORGOT ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING AND THAT IS THAT GLOBAL WORMING AND AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH WAS A FUCKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE. NOW SINCE WHEN SCIENCE AND HISTORY CAN BE RESEARCHED THROUGH A FUCKING MOVIE. WHICH BY THE WAY GOT AL GORE AN OSCAR. SO WHAT IS THE OSCAR NOW A DAYS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS THE NOBEL PRIZE ? MOVIES ARE FICTION JUST LIKE HIS BULLSHIT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! HE WILL NOT DEBATE ANYONE ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD AND THIS MAKES HIM A CORPORATE FRAUD
KnowHowDOCTOR 5 months ago
Monckton knows lots about what is going on, this is Global warming thing is not completely straight yet.
pissandwind 5 months ago 2
@pissandwind rofl, nice one, you didn't get it
AriIceland 4 months ago
@pissandwind
Monckton is a comedy act, don't ya know?
patrickcorliss 4 months ago
Monkton is a politician entering a field which he clearly does not understand.
Plasmon19 5 months ago
@Plasmon19 entering? dude, he has been digging into your so called "Global warming thing" probably since before you were born.
torx8 4 months ago
@torx8 Really? Well, his understanding of the subject(global warming) and physics seems below average. Has he published a paper subject to peer review supported by solid scientific evidence?no. Has he been popularizing his views as a way to push forward a political agenda? most definitely yes.
Plasmon19 4 months ago
i recommend watching these videos if you are sincerely interested in Monckton:
/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
and /watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
StarcrossedPacific 5 months ago
Comment removed
ludocrat 5 months ago
@StarcrossedPacific
Idiot.
ludocrat 5 months ago
Monckton "when I write a peer-reviewed paper for a scientific journal" Interesting comment, seeing that he never has....
desager1 6 months ago
@desager1 he has you idiot...if you did some reading you would realize this.
tacticalmastermind 5 months ago
@tacticalmastermind I have done some reading and I have found "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review" Notice that key word there, not. So unless you are confused, he has not written any peer-reviewed article. Perhaps you should fact check people instead of blindly following what they say, dipshit.
desager1 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Moncktons a good man, expose those lies mate so we can get rid of this pathetic excuse for a carbon tax!
broosycruise 6 months ago
"CO2 does not cause global warming, there is no correlation."
On what is this claim based on?
Ballero0 6 months ago
@Ballero0 Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
aquartlow 5 months ago
@Ballero0 truth...
108Rudi 5 months ago
Comment removed
mlawren7 6 months ago
Even Al Gore admits its all B.S. The jig is up, we know the truth and who is lying to us. Listen to Al Gore's rant at the Aspen Institute. The temperature goes up and then the CO2 follows.
jlarsena 6 months ago
Just proves you don't need to be a scientist have an understanding of what's going on. The whole IPCC debate is about a 400% variability in predictions, that's how accurate the science experts are. Then if you really want to know what's happening in the present, we have real data that says CO2 is constantly rising about 1-2.00 ppm each year and over the last 50 years the temperature has risen and fallen many times which shows the temperature is not driven by CO2.
wmvaux 6 months ago
atten truthers
/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
guberskank 6 months ago
monckton leading skeptic LOL awesome credibility, fancy putting a journo who masters in misinformation against a real scientist.. anyone who believes monckton should take up smoking because honestly, it doesnt cause cancer haha
guberskank 6 months ago
What is now labled carbon tax, the whole process is a scam. The Australian Government are ruled by a global shadow government, which is why gilliard is pushing this shit so much. If she and her party, the greens too dont do what there told, thier lives will not be rosy and all the secret benifits promised to them will dissapear. Worse case they will be dispatched. Global warming is a scam.
Thumper396396 6 months ago
I can't express how much I loathe Ben McNeil: a SMUG little worm of a (research) fellow... "Are you a climate scientist?" "It's like debating the laws of physics." Seriously... people that stupid... I can't even express what an utter bastard and asshole this pretentious young man is. ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!! Everything that is wrong with the climatologist viewpoint in right there in this little shit.
mlawren7 7 months ago
well said
sandwichappy 7 months ago
@mlawren7, Yes Politician calls scientist a fake, you back the politician. Youve never done a Degree in Science have you!
1BustedMyth 7 months ago
@1BustedMyth Don't. Be. A. Fucking. Moron.
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7, Only a TOTAL toser would say ALL Scientists are wrong and an uneducated elitist, stuck up, religious fundamentalist like Monckton was right!
Oh but wait!!, thats right you have a tiny number of scientists on the big oil, industry paylist that supply fraudulant data to Monckton, ummm..... sooo your saying they are wrong too?
Oh boy!, did you even go through your argument?
Dumb puppet!
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth And what if I had done a Science degree? Like I don't know several retards who haven't! "Only a an academic could be so stupid."
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7, YOU, calling ME a fucking moron!, that is funny!
Well if you had done, then at least you would have some idea what your talking about, you know big words like Thermodynamics! (need to borrow my dictionary?)
If someone was a bumbling fool before their degree, chances are they will be afterwoods, no different with a trade or any other area of life. Like you!, you'll be a shithead till the day you die most likely!
Carl Sagan, Einstein, Farraday, Watt, Volta, all morons?
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth You must be high on something - I never used the word 'thermodynamics', and no I don't need your heavily annotated dictionary. Nothing you've replied to me is even vaguely relent, so please, if you can't stop listening to the voices in your head, at least stop telling me what they say.
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7 Umm... dopey!, My point was that you have no idea what Thermodynamics is!!
Am I going to fast for you?
So are you formaly stating here that the laws of Thermodynamics either do not work or do not apply to GW? is that what you are saying?
I'd be carefull saying other people are ranting if I were you!
So i take it you failed science at grade school?
Perhaps you will tell me double glazing doesn't work next?
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth PT2,
So are you saying that Thermal transmittant properties of gases does not vary?, does not exist? or that you have no idea what it is?
What about wave lengh change of Infrared Light?, does that exist?
Sooo are you saying that that a car on a cold day, with a clear sky does not warm up?
are you stating that Green Houses do not work, can not be used to capture photonic energy, accumulate it ?
Do you understand the light frequency spectrum?
Use your own dictionary
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth *sigh* No, that's not what I'm saying, sir. Now please, you're getting foam on my jacket.
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7, Sorry, you seem to have me confused with someone who actually cares what you think.
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@mlawren7, Stop being such a dopey prick, your just making a fool out of yourself, at least go reasearch what the hell you are talking about! that does not mean read more denier websites!
Theres this thing you can get from a place called a Library called a book!
Why is that almost everyone of you deniers or skeptics is dumb enough to enter the debate without even the most basic understanding of science.
Idiot!
A good skeptic does their homework! before openning their mouth!
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth Canna you help me my book-learnin'?! Can you show me to use the libary misser? I member my teacher tell us how the apple fall on misser Newton's head, and he done figure out how gravity keep all God's creatures onna groun...
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7, All except you it would seem
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@1BustedMyth So the best, most important and seminal scientific paper I should read that proves anthropogenic climate change would be... what? See, because all those names you dropped before, they have theories/laws/formulas that actually DO have a consensus surrounding them. Climate change science is nowhere near that level.
mlawren7 6 months ago
@mlawren7, You know what a scientific paper is?
Here's a name drop... Nasa.. you know, those people that put Humans on the Moon (you do believe we went I hope?) well they give AGW over 95% probability in a formal position.
Monckton, being a mathematician may even be able to grasp that probability.. maybe.. depends how big the cheque is I'm guessing.
Here you go again asking advice from a non scientist, do you not know how to find the papers yourself.. even on yt?....
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1BustedMyth Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
aquartlow 5 months ago
@mlawren7, All those "names that I dropped before" most of those people had to put up with ridicule by small minded people like you and at the time their ideas were radical, seems you don't know the history of science well.
Perhaps you should take the time to find out what you are talking about. The Catholic church started by murdering scientists after torturing them for weeks or months, then they were just ridiculed, both Darwin and Faraday treated badly by your type.. arrogant
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
@mlawren7, Your parady of a person with english as a second language talking to a teacher and I'm guessing you have a white one in mind, just shows you to be a pompus arrogant asshole.
Lets face it, you think your better then me in your twisted little mind, so anything I say will never get a decent pondering by a neutral open mind anyway. To me this is a serious subject but to you its just another oppertunity to fuck people around and talk down to them.
1BustedMyth 6 months ago
McNeil says that Australia will invest in new green technologies, but what has happened?
McNeil has no authority to say what the Australian government will or will not invest in nor in what areas they will investigate in the way of green technologies.
Likelihood is real that nothing material will be done other than have what the global elite want--their slaves to be carbon taxed heavily, to reduce freedoms, & avoid elite taking any of the rightly deserved blame for their monopolistic choices.
oldspammer 7 months ago
Yeah of course hes a "skeptic" you do research present facts your that or a "conspiracy theorist " of course i forgot , -.-
xingwei12 7 months ago
Pity Koch could not be impartial, he should not let his ideology influence this discussion by talking over Loed Monkton
bessymaypearl 7 months ago
@bessymaypearl watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
guberskank 6 months ago
Climate science is a new science.
zepproxx 7 months ago
Loed Monckton wouldnt piss on that grub ben mcneil-all he is is another puppet of the gillard govt
killer2778 8 months ago
@killer2778 monkton is a demonstrable liar, fraudster and scientific illiterate.
scottpastry 7 months ago