No need for alarm folks its just science. Sadly most alarmists found are those invented in the heads of the climate change deniers. Who feel alarmed when they realise transitional change will cost a few bucks. Or alarmed when they think the communists are going to take over. Or the alarmed when they believe the reasons for warming is some vast global conspiracy manipulated by shadow like figures in various governments or labs. What a mass wastage of space.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
Regarding Margaret Thatcher's speech at the end of the video. I quote from George Monbiot writing in the guardian newspaper.
"it is a classic work of prime ministerial humbug. Two days before she delivered the speech, the UK blocked a proposal at a conference in the Netherlands for a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005.
@Richard482 On the day after the speech, the energy secretary, John Wakeham, told the House of Commons that he had been forced to abandon the government's insane plan to privatise nuclear power. It was Thatcher who insisted that "nothing can stop the great car economy" and her ministers who announced "the biggest roadbuilding programme since the Romans".
@Richard482 Thatcher's speech claims credit for measures that the UK either sought to block or accepted under protest. And the solution she proposes for business is, of course, business as usual."
you pro-global carbon tax and al gore loving spastics don't realise that if we were to totally shut down c02 emissions in the west it would make no difference since the deveolping countries will soon be using far more as they become industrialised so carry on bending over to ever increasing taxes all so you can feel green and earth friendly. do you fucks even know what you want? you can't cut c02 if you want the world to still go round, but that's okay the government will save us all.
Gosh, if you're trying to smear Monckton, that's fine, but you blew it by thinking that quoting the Whore of England, M. Thatcher, was gonna impress anyone. :-P
If debunking Monckton is the means of this vid, it falls at the first hurdle. What is written in the doc is correct, he was an advisor to Thatch and indeed is a Viscount.
I can only assume that the uploader of this vid is a fan of Al Gore..
If his science is demonstrably false, why is my temp sensor showing - 6.9 c right now, with temperatures dipping BELOW -20 .. In fact I doubt there's anyone in most of Europe and the UK who would disagree with me.. All the GW spin was about temperatures rising, which is "DEMONSTRABLY FALSE". So what are you expecting to convince me of exactly...that the huge lake and reservoir near me are not FROZEN SOLID? Believe me.. "THEY ARE" 24th Dec 2010.
@greenman3610 , so you can verify the temp in the arctic ... you live there?
My only claim is what the temperature is here in the UK..and it's real.
Your claims are from sourced info..which "everyone and their dog" knows is inherently "unreliable"..I don't give a bollocks what NASA claims or any other Gov't funded body, I know what I see and it is definately not Global Warming. Assuming that I am "dense" is not really a very logical basis to dispel my view, it just lends me more credence ;-)
@greenman3610 , Ooh, somehow I knew there was a Marxist sheep in there somewhere, now you are resorting to critical theory as your last line of defence..what goes on in my head has no relation to how much heating oil and smokeless coal I am using with increasing relativity to conditions year upon year.
I expect you will inevitably apportion blame out of necessity, which is exactly the reason why the whole subject is a self consuming serpent..It get's colder, we whack up the heat, more CO2 ....
@greenman3610 ..so what's in my head is "that all UK and a large number of EU airports were closed for days due to EXTREME cold weather conditions"..Hmm. who needs the therapy here..LOL ..check yourself.
@DeadOriginal - I kinda agree with you. I think this "global warming" is just another hoax, like "global terror", this time so they can impose a world-wide "fart tax" upon us.
@nameofthepen , and guess who'll be administering the "fart tax"...yeah, you guessed it...greenman would be there with his methanometer doing random spot checks and inserting "pay as you go" fartometers into willing partici-pants rectums.. ;-)
@DeadOriginal - Ha ha...funny comment Yeah, this "greenman3610" is a very interesting character, isn't he? His channel claims his bona fides include: "extended study in Nashville with Al Gore", and "[my] work has been profiled in numerous publications, including...HaAretz of Jerusalem."
Mission statement: "Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial." Climate denial? LMAO!
There are a number of problems with this debunking. Firstly, Monkton is lampooned as some kind of upper class twit. This isn't really relevant. Whether man made climate warming is real or not the political agenda it is being used for is correctly described by Monkton. Also, where I live (UK) there is no warming yet. Quite the opposite. It has been getting cooler. Can't speak for other areas I am interested in real world observations on this.
how can one not lampoon an inbred upper class twit, one who not only thinks himself greater than the greatest earth scientists alive, but that he has also cured AIDS and the common cold as well. What's spectacularly ridiculous is that he has bamboozled so many lower class twits.
If you're actually interested in real world observations, it's not as if it's difficult to find.
@effluxide , how cold is it now...I'm UK and it's absolutely freezing, a few minutes ago I posted a comment with my temp reading -6.9c ... It is now -7.4 and dropping. Last winter was freezing (2009)..and the year before (2008) was freezing. I'd say it's regular weather, but definately "very much colder" than the previous 3 decades.
I don't believe in God, nor gods - no thx. Also i thing Global Warming is not made by man. So called greatest scientists of todays climatology are whores of political class. Very well seen for example in a documentary about Henryk Swensmark from Planete.
ps. about AIDS - no cure needed bc there is no such desease.
LORD MONCKTON ROCKS !!! YEEAAAAAH! THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!! NEVER WILL BE!!! HAHAHAHa. IT'S TRUE. YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS TO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!!
The House of Lords is taking action against Lord Monckton for claiming to be a member of the House of Lords and using a variant of the portcullis and crown logo used by members of Parliament. Prosecution means Monckton could do jail time for misusing the logo.
The fact is that he has brought disgrace on the UK and is considered a far right nut there. Conservatives are the corp lobby, ranting far right conspiracy and lies. bags of shite.
at 2:46 Monckton says "We can work out that that glacier existed at the equator at sea level at a time when there was 300,000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and yet there was a glacier there, so there's the first...of why we [know] the CO2 doesn't have the big effect..."
That is among the dumbest statements I've ever read.
He acts as though it doesn't matter what other effects are in play such as solar output or how the earth got into a high ice cover state relative to CO2 levels. Was the earth covered in ice before CO2 levels rose? Did a low solar output nullify the high CO2 levels? A large area of ice would reflect so much sunlight that there wouldn't be much heat to trap and therefore to initiate ice melt would require massively high levels of CO2 or solar output or both, etc.
News Today from the COAPS Hurricane Research Center: Global hurricane activity at the lowest point in 33 years; Pacific activity lowest in recorded history.
Remember when GW fanatics told us warming would lead to more, stronger, hurricanes? Oops again!
Are you stupid? It's not "one case". It's a long-term strend. This year was the lowest hurricane activity in 33 years (and the lowest Pacific storm activity since record-keeping began). Last year was the lowest in 30 years. The year before was the lowest in 20 years.
@ttowntom Can I have the site please because here is what I have for the Atlantic. 21 storms. That is surpassed by only 2005, ties with 1995 and 2003 but is more than all the other years in the NHC's 15 year archive. The year before was 11. Still more than 2006 and 1997. 17 the year before it. Eastern Pacific. 12. Passed by all others except 2006 and 1997. Previous year. 20. Surpassed by only 2006. Even the year before that had 18. There is no trend here!
Oops, you can't count the number of storms. The proper metric is ACE, accumulate cyclone energy, which takes into account the number of storms, along with their strength and duration. The source is COAPS Hurricane Research Center, Tropical Storm Update.
@ttowntom Thanks for the site but not the way you presented it. Next time, don't be a douche. I only wanted to see where you were getting this information. And for the record, NHC has the numbers that I presented, FSU's didn't match. But whatever. Have a nice day.
When you erroneously challenge accurate, factual information, you have to expect a response. And "the numbers you presented" aren't ACE values; they're a simple storm count, which is meaningless. Both NHC and COAPS agree that total storm energy has been declining since 2005.
@ttowntom There was no erroneous about what I said at all. You never mentioned ACE values in your original post and that is what threw me off. You said "activity." I can't assume that ACE is what you meant by that at all. This is nothing but a misunderstanding of what you meant by one word. If you go with ACE, I agree. Done.
The original post said "activity". Total hurricane activity is declining. Simply counting storms gives a false picture; it implies a tiny Cat I storm that lasts only a couple days is as meaningful as a Cat V monster lasting weeks.
Why are these climate extremists like Greenman and Abrahams making these amateurish hit pieces of Monckton?
The reason is they are scared of his message.The way he can convey the simple truths that rip thru this web of lies which is manmade global warming.Do not be taken in by cheap propaganda.
And in terms of the whole Pinker issue, I'm so glad you dragged Tim Lambert into this... but all anybody has to do is Google "Lambert’s Pinker-tape “ambush”: PR stunt" to get a grasp on how hypocritical you are in criticizing (incorrectly I might add) Monckton and then ignoring that very same action and worse from somebody you then trump up as a source.
@SurecureX Monckton refers to pinker as HE, when in fact Dr Pinker is a woman. He also miis quotes the message by Dr Pinker. How can you rely on information from a classics major?
@KrunchyJD I don't know Krunchy... how do you rely on info gathered by scientists who break Access to Information laws, rely on data from stations that fail to meet their own defined basic requirements for accuracy, silence scientists who disagree with them (an act completely against the scientific process) & peer-review & approve models that give the same results if you throw random data at it? And you're worried about a he/she mistake or not repeating words verbatim? Strong argument there.
You're absolutely right. NOAA/GISS removed nearly 75% of all weather stations from their global statistics. The stations which were left showed a persistent warming trend, whereas the majority of those removed showed either cooling or no trend whatsoever.
Wow... 1/3 of the video (like the last "debunking" one) is personal attacks and inflammatory copy. A person must have such strong factual legs to stand on if they rely on such personal attacks for such a large part of your video, right?
But Politifact? Are you serious? Well, now, if you consider a news source that favors Obama 100% of the time to be unbiased and rational... I guess it won't be long before you start turning to the Journolist for sources.
Ignoring for a moment the obvious straw men populating this amateur logic-chopping event, this is hardly a crushing debunking of the good Lord. While he certainly had some strange ideas for quarantining AIDS, and a particularly serious problem with his metaphysics, major elements of his anti-AGW argument are more than reasonable.
And let's not forget Maggie had an agenda... she put millions of pounds into research that would give her a good reason to introduce nuclear power in Britain.
When are Moncton and those "30,000 scientists" gonna file their lawsuit against Al Gore? They've been pimping it on Faux News for nearly three years. What's the hold up?
@greenman3610 lol, yeah and gore is seen as a beacon of truth, he is also setting a great example for all the unthinking GW supporters. Dumbass. Carbon follows temp in all ice core studies. Fullstop, your video is worthless and so is your mind, please I invite your criticism, I will certainly expose your stupidity. Part two "updated", now with more lies. lol
I would be very careful with your assessment views on the "snowball earth". The models that suggest that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2, have some very large assumptions that lots of scientist including my self don't feel are supported by the data. In short
Ie- Snowball earth gives you a high feedback response from CO2
Slushball earth not so much.
Slushball earth with volcanic ash albedo adjustment = less sensitivity.
Using it as a proxy for modern times also has serious problems.
@greenman3610 If I know the man I would for sure... I don't know what to think about the man..I mean in my view the real debate about global warming boils down a few things.
Where is climate sensitivity lie in interglacial periods like this?
Is there a delay response to sensitivity?
What time scale does it operate over?
In my thoughts sensitivity is high at peak glacial periods and tapers off. A battle between could formation and reduced albedo and other factors
Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove global warming was occurring and Humans were primarily responsible. Like earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons, reaching essentially the same verdict. proving these attacks on climate science are not based on science, they’re based on naivety and political manipulation.
@mott. We were discussing "those scientists in the 70's" and you offer up an individual scientist that supports your opinion. Sorry but cherry picks don't trump reality.
The reality is that a minority of the 70's scientists were discussing the possibility of an ice age, and it was the press that blew it out of proportion.
Or do you think scientists shouldn't ever consider alternative possibilities?
Wow, people like Mott are still spewing the oldest denialist crocks! Who believes "those scientists in the 70's" were going around telling everyone an ice age was coming? (In reality, only a handful of scientists were toying with the possibility. There was no mainstream belief of the sort.) And Greenman has posted a very nice video about this as well.
People like Mott are our problem... they don't learn. They only repeat what they wish to believe.
Wow, people like Mott are still spewing the oldest denialist crocks! Who believes "those scientists in the 70's" were going around telling everyone an ice age was coming? (In reality, only a handful of scientists were toying with the possibility. There was no mainstream belief of the sort.) And Greenman has posted a very nice video about this as well.
People like Mott are our problem... they don't learn. They only repeat what they wish to believe.
@petwir And who should we believe? Those very same scientists who fudged the figures? Not even Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia university is all that certain anymore. Halftruths, reinterpretations, which ever way you wish to look at history you will find another story attached to it. The past is so often re- interpreted to suit the requirements of the present, Global Warming alarmists are no exception. You don't want those government grants to stop now do you? No probs here
@greenman3610 What Mike Hulme believes and what is reality are two different things, he says researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, (they would need to be after all the lies they have been telling for years), of course Hulme wants to keep his job on the merry go round. I'm betting on Mother Nature's 4 billion years and not 200 years of human industrialisation. I don't expect any 'Green' nutjob to do the math. The con has been exposed!
@petwir "The facts have emerged in recent years and months, from research into past Ice Ages. They imply that the threat of a new Ice Age now stands alongside Nuclear War as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind" Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist July 1975!..Alarmism of a different kind? most definately scaremongering. Global Warming has now become a mass movement and religion for it's believers, there are now to many ego's at stake for anyone to back down now.
I would rather believe Monckton any day than Al Groper on Global Warming. This video is just one more in another long line of pathetic Climate alarmism. People are waking up to this BS and are not falling for these inconvenient lies. Global Warming is a myth.
@infectingthecrypts You mean those same scientists who fudged the figures about Climate Change last year? Or maybe those scientists in the 70's who said we we approaching the dawn of a new ICE age? It's a myth, the planet is doing just fine, it's been here billions of years, mother nature will swat us like a fly when she is good and ready. I'm freezing here in OZ today and you know why? It's frigging Winter and it's always cold, wet and windy in Winter. It's a climate fraud that's all.
@MottTheWot Whatever. All I was saying was that you should listen to someone whose expertise is in that field. Compare and contrast global warming "skeptics" and "believers" among climatologists and arrive at an opinion from there. You just shouldn't get your opinion from glory-whores who aren't even a part of the scientific community. I personally don't have a real opinion on the matter since I haven't really studied it, so I'm not preaching.
@infectingthecrypts The UN body that advises Governments on climate change failed to make clear how it's landmark report on the impact of Global Warming often presented a worst case scenario, an investigation has concluded. A summary report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change on regional impacts focused on the negative consequences and failed to make clear there would be some BENEFITS of rising temperatures. The report adopted a "one sided " approach that was an alarmist view.
@infectingthecrypts "The release of the e mails was the turning point", Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, told the Guardian..."Already there is a new tone, researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about there uncertainties" Scientists are still not sure, they simply do not know. We are looking at an equation that has the Earth at 4 billion years old on one hand and human industrial development less than 200 years? They have a problem with it still.
Not to mention that the hottest planet in the SOLAR SYSTEM is venus, who's atmosphere is 94% CARBON DIOXIDE.... it doesn't even have an internal heat source like we do.... 460 degrees Celsius over the ENTIRE planet, both on the night side and the day side...
Stop making shit up deniers, look at some real science instead of just listening to nutjobs wank off about conspiracy theories.
So there was still glaciers with not weathering rock to take the Co2 out? Meaning high concentrations of Co2 still have glaciers. And Monckton said it had no effect in our atmosphere being 0.5%, I'm sure he wouldn't deny it had an effect if it made up 10% or however much was released to finally warm the climate up. Politifact, really? As for the margaret thatcher debate
Thatcher 'pushed' the green issue because of the propaganda war with Arthur Scargill and British coal. She needed something 'ethical' to stem the growing cynicism about pit closures, so she got Monckton on the team who advised her to play the green and nuclear cards.
CHRIS MONCKTON’s talk (10/14/09) was "FACT-CHECKED" by a real scientist. Oops!!! Here is a brilliant "point-by-point" annotated refutation of Lord Monckton’s unabashed lies & disinformation regarding: CO2 levels & global warming Sea Level rise Melting polar ice Polar Bears Medieval Warm Period Ocean Acidification Solar Irradiance See YouTube: Abraham vs. Monckton /watch?v=QpOrjaWlC_E (John Abraham, PhD, is a Prof. of Engineering (Thermal & Fluid Mechanics) with 80 published papers & patents.)
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, May, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST on satellite record –NSIDC
Does anybody know this song ? C'mon everybody sing along... -- 'Love & marriage, love & marriage, Goes together like a horse & carriage Anarch-an-on and Po----ndman You'd get more sense from a tin of SPAM...' --- Sorry Pete! Didn't mean to lower the tone, but I couldn't resist ... BTW URGENT PRESS AN'NOUNCE'MENT --MARRIAGE OF PONDY AND ANNIE-- To be held at the Ministry of Silly Talks 12. 12. 2012 Service performed by David Icke. Please bring plenty of CO2 Thanks
Fact is this world is FULL of carbon sinks that work in a similar fashion as heat sinks in your computer. Which are plants which can absorb more then 5x current co2 levels with the outcome of increased growth, and ONLY absorb more in the presence of increased temp. Plants regulate our co2 levels to whatever is "needed". If co2 isnt the cause, and we drop that, yet the temp increases from sun or w/e, WE ARE FUCKED as the plants will stress and die at increased temps without increased co2.
Furthermore this increased growth rate would equate to increased food production, and as i recall world hunger is still an issue. And again, if we fuck shit up, that means decreased food availability. And again, plants can absorb easily more then 5x current ppm of co2, THIS IS NOT ANY SORT OF DIRE SITUATION. But jumping the gun and making the wrong decisions will be!
2010 will probably be the hottest year globally in the record, and we are still coming out of the lowest solar minimum in a century. Where's that solar effect you are talking about?
And now would be a good time for plants to start soaking up that CO2, which continues to rise at 2 ppm per year.
@greenman3610 Really showing your ignrorance buddy, Completly sidestepping the carbon sink and possible plant disaster, which was the real point, And focusing on the sun which i never even referenced GJ! BUT btw, a century is 100 years, and in the past 100 years we are at a maximum dumb ass. 100 years ago there was 75 sunspots on average per year, today we are up around 150 per year. Sunspots indicate solar activity. WAY TO SHIT THE BED.
readers may decide for themselves who has been incontinent -
From Nasa science news:
September 3, 2009: The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot.
@mike4ty4 Because you do not understand how a carbon sink works. It will level off. Take a heat sink for example, it will raise in temperature until that equilibrium is reached. Say for a component 100c is absolute max, with critical failure. Well what were doing here with "global warming" and co2 (if it is really the culprit which is debatable) is freaking the hell out when the component reads 20c. As we know, plants will absorb upto 5x current levels, and thats after evolving...
...For a very long time at realitivly low co2 levels. Now we know at certian points in time plants were absorbing 20-30x current co2 levels, life existed, and it created the earth as it is today, as it raises things evolve and change tocope. My point is, even if co2 is the culprit (which is highly debatable itself) there is in no way co2 is at any extreme or critical level right now, and there is no reason to be jumping the gun and making bad decisions due to a fabricated fear of impending doom.
@Spliffer45 The question is not the ultimate capacity to absorb, but the rate at which it is being pumped into the atmosphere. If it's pumping out faster than the plants are absorbing, levels are going to go up, and levels ARE going up. If the component under the heat sink gets hotter, the heat sink temperature will rise as well. If there's more heat coming than it can dissipate at a given temperature, then its temperature will rise.
If anyone is interested in reading about Declining Mortality in a warming world.
blog . heritage . org/2010/05/19/living-longer-in-a-warming-world/
Written by :Indur Goklany was involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an author, U.S. delegate and reviewer since before its inception
My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases - one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences.
@OurVoice123 I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOEs work on climate change. Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind
globalwarming . house . gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer . pdf
That's a very scientific answer. You see AGW as a religion and can't even see that there is good scientific evidence that shows Gore and his buddies wrong. You are nothing but a priest spreading lies
I have alread siad that it is a completely biased video, leaving out anything that doesn't fit into your ideas of what climate change is. You merely put togheter pieces of studies and try to sell them as absolute truth. There is more to proving AGW then putting togheter a video made up of PIECES of studies. I suggest you look at these video's and try and make one proving them wrong too.
Those videos are not about Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton is just one person of the thousands and thousands of people, including scientists, that disagree entirely with the notion of antropogenic climate change
@greenman3610 how can you say it has been debunked? Because you made one of your crappie little vids that a few thousand people watch? A few things on that video were corrected due to slight inaccuracies, for the most part it still stands unbunked.
LOL, that Greenland chart Carter showed is from a paper from Grootes from... 1993. Couldn't Carter find the most recent data? Or are those 'inconvenient'?
And exactly who is this Greenman3610, that sits anonamously attacking those that attack the rediculous notion that CO2 has the capacity to influence climate.
Lets have him show himself and enter into a real debate in public view. I will happily engage any of these bank sucking shills openly and have a couple of tricks that will close the doors on thier game once and for all. They are frauds plain & simple.
just someone that feels we should pay attention to what the combined national science academies, and every established scientific group on the planet are telling us.
@greenman3610 Your answer is a simple case of Argumentum ad Populum and you know it. A kind of bandwagon approach that asserts, since the majority of scientists believe an argument or choose a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice.
@shadowsinthevalley - You are absolutely correct... but recent revelations also show that the actual 'consensus' itself is not valid. The 2,500 scientists are far from that number. Key figures in the IPCC are now disputing that figure and revealing it to be untrue.
This just in: "You thought last winter was bad? Wait until this winter," says Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA
Claims to consensus,..... pathetic
Prepare for cold people, more volcanic activity is loading the high levels of our atmosphere with more aerosols = increased albido = colder
@pondman27 How about you attack what he has said instead of him? Even in this video he admit an Ad Hom attack isn't enough on its own and rebutts the "science" of Monckton so why don't you do the same? Perhaps because it isn't on your side!
The science, when examined in its basic terms is a fraud. Go look up the thermal conduction, specific heat and molecur weight of Carbon. Then assess where most of it should remain (not drilled for or mined). And what resides between. What you will find is that Carbon is of the earth & has no influence on the climate other than rising in volume in gaseous forms during higher biogenic periods.
This greenamn3610 is nothing short of a propagandist that is deperately attempting to support a lunatic hypothesis that is not only unproven in terms of forecasts, but also is designed to make acceptable that billions of human beings are sacrificed.
Greenman3610 & his sorry little clan of AlGore-ithm suckers are in persuit of money & reward from the self same entities that are destroying life in all its forms.
By the time the mistake had been realised, Heathrow had cancelled 169 arrivals and departures and Gatwick more than 200. An estimated 50,000 passengers were affected.
Willie Walsh, boss of British Airways, said the shutdown was a gross over-reaction to a very minor risk. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE DECISIONS ON OPENING AND CLOSING OF AIRPORTS BASED ON A THEORETICAL MODEL' he added.
There was no evidence of ash in the skies over London yet Heathrow was closed'
His Lordship is a courageous rebutter of communistic illuminati based Bilderberg communist new world order pseudo science. Of course in the interests of full disclosure I should state that I am a Canadian who lives 900 feet above sea level.
Sadly this video does not rebute Moncktons views as it (1) only mentions data that has been criticised by Monckton and (2) tries to make fun of the person himself, which I think not the proper way to "debunk" him.
That is the very core of right wing politics, oversimplification of issues and a strong intolerance for ambiguity, this black and white view on the world that they have is laughable, "Send people with aids on a deserted Island, there you go, case closed" What the fuck is wrong with these assholes ? The problem with these dickheads is that, unlike us, they vote so it serves us right.
ha, ha, ha, ha, now that was a funny couple of vids.......... i would like to see what greenman would have to say about austrailian professor bob carter saying that global warming is real, but due to natural forces, and not co2 forcing. personally i have the same opinion but hey i am just a avid snowboarder who just fallows climate change as a little hobby. what about solar intensity? allot of professors say that the sun has a much greater effect on temperature than co2 ever will. just curious.
'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry ,' said Professor Carter. 'I will address the evidence.'"
nothing happened of course, no evidence
Carter is a member of the right-wing.. "think tank" the "Institute of Public Affairs" + his participation in Ocean Drilling Programs (OIL..) are also known.
@andy765gtr You know, I think there is a lot in what you just said about "not believing in a problem." I believe people have a natural desire for stability. Change is something very disruptive. Essentially what science is telling us is, those SUV's and cheap plane tickets to anywhere you want to do. Yeah, that's got to change. People don't want that kind of change so they try to find a way to make it not true. Therein the climate denier is born.
Denial of a global Kabal that has distorted all that is good within the scientific world in its attempts to gain world domination is to be quite frank, absolutely undeniable.
This video, like so many others from the not so greenman, serves not to provide enlightement for humanity, but rather perversly seeks to seduce people into supporting the killing of thier children.
@pondman27 Very true, greenman sees and acts as if AGW is a religion, defending it like a madman and attacking anyone asking questions. In earlier times he would have been a very good priest/imam. Unfotunately, people know better these days
@TheAnarchanon No he doesn't. He looks at denialist claims and rebutts them directly which apparent you can't do, you just attack people because you are utterly deluded.
He says he refuses to read any article that doesn't agree with his views. That's the same as religious fanatics do: dismiss anything that doesn't agree with their views as heresy.
And if you had any knowledge of science, you'd know you can't prove a negative: you can't prove something isn't there or isn't happening. Again, the same as with religions: you can't prove there is no God. There is tons of evidence contradicting AGW, even some IPCC members don't believe in it
The problem I have with people like him is that he closed of his mind to anything that disagrees with AGW. Anyone who dares speak differently or deny it is blind and stupid. The contrary is true. It doesn't mean you're right because you have a majority. The majority of people used to think the earth was flat and the center of the universe. AGW is science, not religion. If you don't keep an opn mind about it, you trun it into religion and that's my problem
Yup, a lot. Don't start with the peer review crap, it doesn't mean shit when it's done by a group of people who are afraid of getting kicked if they don't agree.
A paper: tinyurl com/39llmm6
replace the " " with "."
and a site with studies: co2science org
List: Won't let me post the link, so just google:IPCC members who disagree with agw
Now, please give me 1 link to a study not funded or affiliated with governments that proves co2 causes climate change
Five bucks says he's talking about Chris Landsea. Unfortunately, Landsea's not actually an AGW skeptic. He withdrew from the IPCC, but he doesn't dispute AGW.
@kcdl (Gawd, this terrible spam filter is irritating--let me try re-wording just a bit)
"Which IPCC members? Citations please. "
I'd bet that he's talking about Chris Landsea. Unfortunately, Landsea's not actually an AGW skeptic. He withdrew from the IPCC, but he doesn't dispute AGW.
tinyurl com/5laabm: 255 pages incase you have a lot of free time
You can just google: Ipcc members deny agw or something to find detailed reports and lists
Now, please present me one, just one, study proving manmade co2 emissions cause the current climate change. And to make it more interesting: find one that is in no way affiliated with governments or government fundings
No need for alarm folks its just science. Sadly most alarmists found are those invented in the heads of the climate change deniers. Who feel alarmed when they realise transitional change will cost a few bucks. Or alarmed when they think the communists are going to take over. Or the alarmed when they believe the reasons for warming is some vast global conspiracy manipulated by shadow like figures in various governments or labs. What a mass wastage of space.
BraniusBalki 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
Oh Greenman, what delicious satire you weave into your informative videos. The song at the end split my sides.
EVLWNS 8 months ago
@EVLWNS
heh heh.
they hate being laughed at, but so richly deserve it.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Regarding Margaret Thatcher's speech at the end of the video. I quote from George Monbiot writing in the guardian newspaper.
"it is a classic work of prime ministerial humbug. Two days before she delivered the speech, the UK blocked a proposal at a conference in the Netherlands for a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005.
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482 On the day after the speech, the energy secretary, John Wakeham, told the House of Commons that he had been forced to abandon the government's insane plan to privatise nuclear power. It was Thatcher who insisted that "nothing can stop the great car economy" and her ministers who announced "the biggest roadbuilding programme since the Romans".
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482 Thatcher's speech claims credit for measures that the UK either sought to block or accepted under protest. And the solution she proposes for business is, of course, business as usual."
Richard482 1 year ago
you pro-global carbon tax and al gore loving spastics don't realise that if we were to totally shut down c02 emissions in the west it would make no difference since the deveolping countries will soon be using far more as they become industrialised so carry on bending over to ever increasing taxes all so you can feel green and earth friendly. do you fucks even know what you want? you can't cut c02 if you want the world to still go round, but that's okay the government will save us all.
sh4p3shifter 1 year ago
@sh4p3shifter
''Al Gore loving spastics''.
GREAT intellectual powerhouse here folks. BRACE YOURSELVES.
Primordialfan1 3 months ago
GREENMAN YOU ARE A BAD JOKE OF A PROPAGANDIST
IDIOTS LIKE YOU IN U.K. METRO PREDICTED A WARM WET WINTER
PIERS CORBYN USING SUN DATA PREDICTED A TRAGIC WINTER.
SOOOOOO
IF YOU CANNOT PREDICT 5 MONTHS INTO FUTURE....
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME ABOUT A LONGER TIME LINE...FOOL
LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI 1 year ago
@LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI
Please document any weather predictions made in this series.
Weather, is, of course, not climate.
Curious readers can google my blog postings on recent weather events-
White Christmas in Southeast. Heatwave in Hudson Bay.
Today’s NOAA Image: Cold Continents/Warm Arctic continues
Be advised: Spamming comments will get you blocked - but thanks for the opportunity to make a point.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Gosh, if you're trying to smear Monckton, that's fine, but you blew it by thinking that quoting the Whore of England, M. Thatcher, was gonna impress anyone. :-P
nameofthepen 1 year ago
If debunking Monckton is the means of this vid, it falls at the first hurdle. What is written in the doc is correct, he was an advisor to Thatch and indeed is a Viscount.
I can only assume that the uploader of this vid is a fan of Al Gore..
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal
the point is not that he lied about being a member of the house of lords.
the point is that his science is demonstrably false and deliberately misleading, and that he is
a nutcase who claims to have cured AIDS and the common cold.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 , I can't help but disagree..
If his science is demonstrably false, why is my temp sensor showing - 6.9 c right now, with temperatures dipping BELOW -20 .. In fact I doubt there's anyone in most of Europe and the UK who would disagree with me.. All the GW spin was about temperatures rising, which is "DEMONSTRABLY FALSE". So what are you expecting to convince me of exactly...that the huge lake and reservoir near me are not FROZEN SOLID? Believe me.. "THEY ARE" 24th Dec 2010.
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal
are you so dense as to suppose that your thermometer indicates global temperature?
currently the arctic is 5 to 20 degrees above normal, because the airflow has pushed the colder air toward europe and north america.
see my blog post
google
climatecrocks Today’s NOAA Image: Cold Continents/Warm Arctic continues
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
also, for global temps, google
nasa key indicators
and
nasa 2010 warmest meteorological year
and
nasa 2009 second warmest
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 , so you can verify the temp in the arctic ... you live there?
My only claim is what the temperature is here in the UK..and it's real.
Your claims are from sourced info..which "everyone and their dog" knows is inherently "unreliable"..I don't give a bollocks what NASA claims or any other Gov't funded body, I know what I see and it is definately not Global Warming. Assuming that I am "dense" is not really a very logical basis to dispel my view, it just lends me more credence ;-)
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal
Oh, that's right.
It's all about what's going on in your head.
google
precious bodily fluids.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 , Ooh, somehow I knew there was a Marxist sheep in there somewhere, now you are resorting to critical theory as your last line of defence..what goes on in my head has no relation to how much heating oil and smokeless coal I am using with increasing relativity to conditions year upon year.
I expect you will inevitably apportion blame out of necessity, which is exactly the reason why the whole subject is a self consuming serpent..It get's colder, we whack up the heat, more CO2 ....
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal
you're reasoning stated above is that, if it's snowing at your house, it's snowing all over the world.
you refuse to listen to anyone other than the voices in your head, all others that disagree are "marxist sheep", part of the plot against you.
So often this is what it comes to with deniers, that what they really need is not more facts, but more therapy.
I can't offer that here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 ..so what's in my head is "that all UK and a large number of EU airports were closed for days due to EXTREME cold weather conditions"..Hmm. who needs the therapy here..LOL ..check yourself.
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal - I kinda agree with you. I think this "global warming" is just another hoax, like "global terror", this time so they can impose a world-wide "fart tax" upon us.
nameofthepen 1 year ago
@nameofthepen
document a tax on farts.
that would definitely cost some of us more than others.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@nameofthepen , and guess who'll be administering the "fart tax"...yeah, you guessed it...greenman would be there with his methanometer doing random spot checks and inserting "pay as you go" fartometers into willing partici-pants rectums.. ;-)
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal - Ha ha...funny comment Yeah, this "greenman3610" is a very interesting character, isn't he? His channel claims his bona fides include: "extended study in Nashville with Al Gore", and "[my] work has been profiled in numerous publications, including...HaAretz of Jerusalem."
Mission statement: "Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial." Climate denial? LMAO!
nameofthepen 1 year ago
@DeadOriginal
you sound wayyy too excited about that idea.
I think I'll pass on that.
greenman3610 1 year ago
There are a number of problems with this debunking. Firstly, Monkton is lampooned as some kind of upper class twit. This isn't really relevant. Whether man made climate warming is real or not the political agenda it is being used for is correctly described by Monkton. Also, where I live (UK) there is no warming yet. Quite the opposite. It has been getting cooler. Can't speak for other areas I am interested in real world observations on this.
effluxide 1 year ago
@effluxide
how can one not lampoon an inbred upper class twit, one who not only thinks himself greater than the greatest earth scientists alive, but that he has also cured AIDS and the common cold as well. What's spectacularly ridiculous is that he has bamboozled so many lower class twits.
If you're actually interested in real world observations, it's not as if it's difficult to find.
google
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 1 year ago
@effluxide , how cold is it now...I'm UK and it's absolutely freezing, a few minutes ago I posted a comment with my temp reading -6.9c ... It is now -7.4 and dropping. Last winter was freezing (2009)..and the year before (2008) was freezing. I'd say it's regular weather, but definately "very much colder" than the previous 3 decades.
DeadOriginal 1 year ago
Moncton is a NWO agent to discredit Global Warmin deniers. Thats what he is. Thats why he is so ignorant makes mistakes speaks latin and uses math.
Now I want a candy because I saw through your lies, I won't get one? :C Gues I will have to be satisfied just with the discovery itself :D
cz7bo 1 year ago
@cz7bo
Your reward is in heaven.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I don't believe in God, nor gods - no thx. Also i thing Global Warming is not made by man. So called greatest scientists of todays climatology are whores of political class. Very well seen for example in a documentary about Henryk Swensmark from Planete.
ps. about AIDS - no cure needed bc there is no such desease.
Sweet dreams.
cz7bo 1 year ago
@cz7bo
it's so weird that his serene lordship monckon would be claiming to have cured a disease that does not exist, not to mention the common cold as well.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LORD MONCKTON ROCKS !!! YEEAAAAAH! THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!! NEVER WILL BE!!! HAHAHAHa. IT'S TRUE. YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS TO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!!
87solarsky 1 year ago
Lord Monckton is right! There's no global warming! It's either HAARP or Global COOLING! Get the fuck alive, toads!
87solarsky 1 year ago
The House of Lords is taking action against Lord Monckton for claiming to be a member of the House of Lords and using a variant of the portcullis and crown logo used by members of Parliament. Prosecution means Monckton could do jail time for misusing the logo.
The fact is that he has brought disgrace on the UK and is considered a far right nut there. Conservatives are the corp lobby, ranting far right conspiracy and lies. bags of shite.
All Mockton is is the oil lobby.
marsCubed 1 year ago
part 1)
at 2:46 Monckton says "We can work out that that glacier existed at the equator at sea level at a time when there was 300,000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and yet there was a glacier there, so there's the first...of why we [know] the CO2 doesn't have the big effect..."
That is among the dumbest statements I've ever read.
cont->>
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
part 2)
He acts as though it doesn't matter what other effects are in play such as solar output or how the earth got into a high ice cover state relative to CO2 levels. Was the earth covered in ice before CO2 levels rose? Did a low solar output nullify the high CO2 levels? A large area of ice would reflect so much sunlight that there wouldn't be much heat to trap and therefore to initiate ice melt would require massively high levels of CO2 or solar output or both, etc.
Monckton's a snake.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... into a world of pure imagination
aerobique 1 year ago
News Today from the COAPS Hurricane Research Center: Global hurricane activity at the lowest point in 33 years; Pacific activity lowest in recorded history.
Remember when GW fanatics told us warming would lead to more, stronger, hurricanes? Oops again!
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom one case doesn't equal a trend.
NK029 1 year ago
@NK029,
Are you stupid? It's not "one case". It's a long-term strend. This year was the lowest hurricane activity in 33 years (and the lowest Pacific storm activity since record-keeping began). Last year was the lowest in 30 years. The year before was the lowest in 20 years.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Can I have the site please because here is what I have for the Atlantic. 21 storms. That is surpassed by only 2005, ties with 1995 and 2003 but is more than all the other years in the NHC's 15 year archive. The year before was 11. Still more than 2006 and 1997. 17 the year before it. Eastern Pacific. 12. Passed by all others except 2006 and 1997. Previous year. 20. Surpassed by only 2006. Even the year before that had 18. There is no trend here!
NK029 1 year ago
@ttowntom Almost forgot my source and seeing as it won't let me post a link. "NHC Archive of Hurricane Seasons" copy and paste.
NK029 1 year ago
@NK029,
Oops, you can't count the number of storms. The proper metric is ACE, accumulate cyclone energy, which takes into account the number of storms, along with their strength and duration. The source is COAPS Hurricane Research Center, Tropical Storm Update.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Thanks for the site but not the way you presented it. Next time, don't be a douche. I only wanted to see where you were getting this information. And for the record, NHC has the numbers that I presented, FSU's didn't match. But whatever. Have a nice day.
NK029 1 year ago
@NK029,
When you erroneously challenge accurate, factual information, you have to expect a response. And "the numbers you presented" aren't ACE values; they're a simple storm count, which is meaningless. Both NHC and COAPS agree that total storm energy has been declining since 2005.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom There was no erroneous about what I said at all. You never mentioned ACE values in your original post and that is what threw me off. You said "activity." I can't assume that ACE is what you meant by that at all. This is nothing but a misunderstanding of what you meant by one word. If you go with ACE, I agree. Done.
NK029 1 year ago
@NK029,
The original post said "activity". Total hurricane activity is declining. Simply counting storms gives a false picture; it implies a tiny Cat I storm that lasts only a couple days is as meaningful as a Cat V monster lasting weeks.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Didn't Mockton refference that Sweedish scientist that just recently reversed his assesment on the effects of AGW?
judoyodan 1 year ago
Why are these climate extremists like Greenman and Abrahams making these amateurish hit pieces of Monckton?
The reason is they are scared of his message.The way he can convey the simple truths that rip thru this web of lies which is manmade global warming.Do not be taken in by cheap propaganda.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
And in terms of the whole Pinker issue, I'm so glad you dragged Tim Lambert into this... but all anybody has to do is Google "Lambert’s Pinker-tape “ambush”: PR stunt" to get a grasp on how hypocritical you are in criticizing (incorrectly I might add) Monckton and then ignoring that very same action and worse from somebody you then trump up as a source.
You have such strong legs there.
SurecureX 1 year ago
@SurecureX Monckton refers to pinker as HE, when in fact Dr Pinker is a woman. He also miis quotes the message by Dr Pinker. How can you rely on information from a classics major?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD I don't know Krunchy... how do you rely on info gathered by scientists who break Access to Information laws, rely on data from stations that fail to meet their own defined basic requirements for accuracy, silence scientists who disagree with them (an act completely against the scientific process) & peer-review & approve models that give the same results if you throw random data at it? And you're worried about a he/she mistake or not repeating words verbatim? Strong argument there.
SurecureX 1 year ago
@SurecureX
all of these charges are of course baseless.
see here:
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
ignorance hurts. I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@SurecureX,
You're absolutely right. NOAA/GISS removed nearly 75% of all weather stations from their global statistics. The stations which were left showed a persistent warming trend, whereas the majority of those removed showed either cooling or no trend whatsoever.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Wow... 1/3 of the video (like the last "debunking" one) is personal attacks and inflammatory copy. A person must have such strong factual legs to stand on if they rely on such personal attacks for such a large part of your video, right?
But Politifact? Are you serious? Well, now, if you consider a news source that favors Obama 100% of the time to be unbiased and rational... I guess it won't be long before you start turning to the Journolist for sources.
SurecureX 1 year ago
LOL ... into a world of pure imagination
Sarahadam1 1 year ago
Ignoring for a moment the obvious straw men populating this amateur logic-chopping event, this is hardly a crushing debunking of the good Lord. While he certainly had some strange ideas for quarantining AIDS, and a particularly serious problem with his metaphysics, major elements of his anti-AGW argument are more than reasonable.
And let's not forget Maggie had an agenda... she put millions of pounds into research that would give her a good reason to introduce nuclear power in Britain.
objectivistglenn 1 year ago
@objectivistglenn Perhaps you can fill us in on what (if anything) is accurate about Monckton's claims about AGW.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@objectivistglenn
"major elements of his anti-AGW argument are more than reasonable."
No, they're nonsense. All his claims have been thoroughly debunked. No renowned climate scientist takes him seriously.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Do you have any sources to support your bullshit?
maganz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maganz
"Do you have any sources to support your bullshit?"
How about peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with climatology.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
When are Moncton and those "30,000 scientists" gonna file their lawsuit against Al Gore? They've been pimping it on Faux News for nearly three years. What's the hold up?
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
@AtlasShruggery
If you're wating for Monckton to do something besides bluster and threaten, you are in for a long wait.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 lol, yeah and gore is seen as a beacon of truth, he is also setting a great example for all the unthinking GW supporters. Dumbass. Carbon follows temp in all ice core studies. Fullstop, your video is worthless and so is your mind, please I invite your criticism, I will certainly expose your stupidity. Part two "updated", now with more lies. lol
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08
the only assertion I can tease out of this is
"Carbon follows temp in all ice core studies"
I've already dealt with that in a vid, which curious viewers can see here:\
watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
greenman3610 1 year ago
I would be very careful with your assessment views on the "snowball earth". The models that suggest that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2, have some very large assumptions that lots of scientist including my self don't feel are supported by the data. In short
Ie- Snowball earth gives you a high feedback response from CO2
Slushball earth not so much.
Slushball earth with volcanic ash albedo adjustment = less sensitivity.
Using it as a proxy for modern times also has serious problems.
EasyEs 1 year ago
@EasyEs
have you told that to Monckton?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 If I know the man I would for sure... I don't know what to think about the man..I mean in my view the real debate about global warming boils down a few things.
Where is climate sensitivity lie in interglacial periods like this?
Is there a delay response to sensitivity?
What time scale does it operate over?
In my thoughts sensitivity is high at peak glacial periods and tapers off. A battle between could formation and reduced albedo and other factors
More data is needed for sure.
EasyEs 1 year ago
Another panel of eminent global climatologists has concluded scientists whose e-mails were hacked last year had not as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove global warming was occurring and Humans were primarily responsible. Like earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons, reaching essentially the same verdict. proving these attacks on climate science are not based on science, they’re based on naivety and political manipulation.
danielnz1 1 year ago
@mott. We were discussing "those scientists in the 70's" and you offer up an individual scientist that supports your opinion. Sorry but cherry picks don't trump reality.
The reality is that a minority of the 70's scientists were discussing the possibility of an ice age, and it was the press that blew it out of proportion.
Or do you think scientists shouldn't ever consider alternative possibilities?
petwir 1 year ago
@petwir
as usual , there is a video that discusses and refutes this canard.
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
Note to deniers: always best to go thru ALL the vids so you don't look like a dope when you post.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, people like Mott are still spewing the oldest denialist crocks! Who believes "those scientists in the 70's" were going around telling everyone an ice age was coming? (In reality, only a handful of scientists were toying with the possibility. There was no mainstream belief of the sort.) And Greenman has posted a very nice video about this as well.
People like Mott are our problem... they don't learn. They only repeat what they wish to believe.
petwir 1 year ago
Wow, people like Mott are still spewing the oldest denialist crocks! Who believes "those scientists in the 70's" were going around telling everyone an ice age was coming? (In reality, only a handful of scientists were toying with the possibility. There was no mainstream belief of the sort.) And Greenman has posted a very nice video about this as well.
People like Mott are our problem... they don't learn. They only repeat what they wish to believe.
petwir 1 year ago
@petwir And who should we believe? Those very same scientists who fudged the figures? Not even Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia university is all that certain anymore. Halftruths, reinterpretations, which ever way you wish to look at history you will find another story attached to it. The past is so often re- interpreted to suit the requirements of the present, Global Warming alarmists are no exception. You don't want those government grants to stop now do you? No probs here
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@MottTheWot
Well, perhaps to find out what Mike Hulme believes, you should read what he says, not what jack ass denier dot com says he said.
google
Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight
I'm here to help you from continuing to make a fool of yourself.
You're welcome.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 What Mike Hulme believes and what is reality are two different things, he says researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, (they would need to be after all the lies they have been telling for years), of course Hulme wants to keep his job on the merry go round. I'm betting on Mother Nature's 4 billion years and not 200 years of human industrialisation. I don't expect any 'Green' nutjob to do the math. The con has been exposed!
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@MottTheWot
backtracking furiously-- Now Hulme is totally noncredible, right?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Huh? I never backtrack from the truth
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@petwir "The facts have emerged in recent years and months, from research into past Ice Ages. They imply that the threat of a new Ice Age now stands alongside Nuclear War as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind" Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist July 1975!..Alarmism of a different kind? most definately scaremongering. Global Warming has now become a mass movement and religion for it's believers, there are now to many ego's at stake for anyone to back down now.
MottTheWot 1 year ago
I would rather believe Monckton any day than Al Groper on Global Warming. This video is just one more in another long line of pathetic Climate alarmism. People are waking up to this BS and are not falling for these inconvenient lies. Global Warming is a myth.
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@MottTheWot How about you listen to an actual scientist instead?
infectingthecrypts 1 year ago
@infectingthecrypts You mean those same scientists who fudged the figures about Climate Change last year? Or maybe those scientists in the 70's who said we we approaching the dawn of a new ICE age? It's a myth, the planet is doing just fine, it's been here billions of years, mother nature will swat us like a fly when she is good and ready. I'm freezing here in OZ today and you know why? It's frigging Winter and it's always cold, wet and windy in Winter. It's a climate fraud that's all.
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@MottTheWot Whatever. All I was saying was that you should listen to someone whose expertise is in that field. Compare and contrast global warming "skeptics" and "believers" among climatologists and arrive at an opinion from there. You just shouldn't get your opinion from glory-whores who aren't even a part of the scientific community. I personally don't have a real opinion on the matter since I haven't really studied it, so I'm not preaching.
infectingthecrypts 1 year ago
@infectingthecrypts The UN body that advises Governments on climate change failed to make clear how it's landmark report on the impact of Global Warming often presented a worst case scenario, an investigation has concluded. A summary report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change on regional impacts focused on the negative consequences and failed to make clear there would be some BENEFITS of rising temperatures. The report adopted a "one sided " approach that was an alarmist view.
MottTheWot 1 year ago
@infectingthecrypts "The release of the e mails was the turning point", Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, told the Guardian..."Already there is a new tone, researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about there uncertainties" Scientists are still not sure, they simply do not know. We are looking at an equation that has the Earth at 4 billion years old on one hand and human industrial development less than 200 years? They have a problem with it still.
MottTheWot 1 year ago
Comment removed
MottTheWot 1 year ago
Not to mention that the hottest planet in the SOLAR SYSTEM is venus, who's atmosphere is 94% CARBON DIOXIDE.... it doesn't even have an internal heat source like we do.... 460 degrees Celsius over the ENTIRE planet, both on the night side and the day side...
Stop making shit up deniers, look at some real science instead of just listening to nutjobs wank off about conspiracy theories.
Moirera 1 year ago
So there was still glaciers with not weathering rock to take the Co2 out? Meaning high concentrations of Co2 still have glaciers. And Monckton said it had no effect in our atmosphere being 0.5%, I'm sure he wouldn't deny it had an effect if it made up 10% or however much was released to finally warm the climate up. Politifact, really? As for the margaret thatcher debate
TheHersey 1 year ago
.telegraph. co. uk/ comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/ Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
Please correct any of my statements for I am not necessarily for or against one side I simply play Devil's Advocate to understand the situation.
TheHersey 1 year ago
@TheHersey
google
Thatcher dementia fight revealed
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 touche, thanks for the info!
TheHersey 1 year ago
@greenman3610
...than Rex Tillerson is a believer in solar energy.
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
@TheHersey
Thatcher 'pushed' the green issue because of the propaganda war with Arthur Scargill and British coal. She needed something 'ethical' to stem the growing cynicism about pit closures, so she got Monckton on the team who advised her to play the green and nuclear cards.
Thatcher was no more green
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
@TheHersey
...than REx Tillerson believed in solar power.
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
goog2k 1 year ago
WHAT GLOBAL COOLING?
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, May, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST on satellite record –NSIDC
goog2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
goog2k 1 year ago
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
Fact is this world is FULL of carbon sinks that work in a similar fashion as heat sinks in your computer. Which are plants which can absorb more then 5x current co2 levels with the outcome of increased growth, and ONLY absorb more in the presence of increased temp. Plants regulate our co2 levels to whatever is "needed". If co2 isnt the cause, and we drop that, yet the temp increases from sun or w/e, WE ARE FUCKED as the plants will stress and die at increased temps without increased co2.
Spliffer45 1 year ago
Furthermore this increased growth rate would equate to increased food production, and as i recall world hunger is still an issue. And again, if we fuck shit up, that means decreased food availability. And again, plants can absorb easily more then 5x current ppm of co2, THIS IS NOT ANY SORT OF DIRE SITUATION. But jumping the gun and making the wrong decisions will be!
Spliffer45 1 year ago
@Spliffer45
2010 will probably be the hottest year globally in the record, and we are still coming out of the lowest solar minimum in a century. Where's that solar effect you are talking about?
And now would be a good time for plants to start soaking up that CO2, which continues to rise at 2 ppm per year.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Really showing your ignrorance buddy, Completly sidestepping the carbon sink and possible plant disaster, which was the real point, And focusing on the sun which i never even referenced GJ! BUT btw, a century is 100 years, and in the past 100 years we are at a maximum dumb ass. 100 years ago there was 75 sunspots on average per year, today we are up around 150 per year. Sunspots indicate solar activity. WAY TO SHIT THE BED.
Spliffer45 1 year ago
@Spliffer45
readers may decide for themselves who has been incontinent -
From Nasa science news:
September 3, 2009: The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot.
google:
nasa science news september 3, 2009
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Spliffer45 If this is soaking up CO2 as much as you say, then why is CO2 still on the rise?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@mike4ty4 Because you do not understand how a carbon sink works. It will level off. Take a heat sink for example, it will raise in temperature until that equilibrium is reached. Say for a component 100c is absolute max, with critical failure. Well what were doing here with "global warming" and co2 (if it is really the culprit which is debatable) is freaking the hell out when the component reads 20c. As we know, plants will absorb upto 5x current levels, and thats after evolving...
Spliffer45 1 year ago
...For a very long time at realitivly low co2 levels. Now we know at certian points in time plants were absorbing 20-30x current co2 levels, life existed, and it created the earth as it is today, as it raises things evolve and change tocope. My point is, even if co2 is the culprit (which is highly debatable itself) there is in no way co2 is at any extreme or critical level right now, and there is no reason to be jumping the gun and making bad decisions due to a fabricated fear of impending doom.
Spliffer45 1 year ago
@Spliffer45 The question is not the ultimate capacity to absorb, but the rate at which it is being pumped into the atmosphere. If it's pumping out faster than the plants are absorbing, levels are going to go up, and levels ARE going up. If the component under the heat sink gets hotter, the heat sink temperature will rise as well. If there's more heat coming than it can dissipate at a given temperature, then its temperature will rise.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
If anyone is interested in reading about Declining Mortality in a warming world.
blog . heritage . org/2010/05/19/living-longer-in-a-warming-world/
Written by :Indur Goklany was involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an author, U.S. delegate and reviewer since before its inception
OurVoice123 1 year ago
My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases - one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences.
OurVoice123 1 year ago
@OurVoice123 I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOEs work on climate change. Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind
globalwarming . house . gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer . pdf
OurVoice123 1 year ago
@OurVoice123
Happer is a senile fraud.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
That's a very scientific answer. You see AGW as a religion and can't even see that there is good scientific evidence that shows Gore and his buddies wrong. You are nothing but a priest spreading lies
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
the science is in the video. You have not addressed it.
Happer is a senile fraud.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I have alread siad that it is a completely biased video, leaving out anything that doesn't fit into your ideas of what climate change is. You merely put togheter pieces of studies and try to sell them as absolute truth. There is more to proving AGW then putting togheter a video made up of PIECES of studies. I suggest you look at these video's and try and make one proving them wrong too.
/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=fvst
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon They don't like Bob Carter either here...love the way Greenie trolls his own threads.
OurVoice123 1 year ago
@OurVoice123
Alright, let's see if he can find good answers to some of the IPCC members themselves outing their disbelief:
/watch?v=o7BGZnDkOVQ&feature=related
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
this is just "The Great Global Warming Swindle" movie.
This embarrassing piece of crap has been debunked, by me, here:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
seriously, this is the best you can do?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
You select a few pieces of the video and provide goverment answers to them (NOAA, ...) and immediately dismiss the entire thing to be wrong?
How many of the predictions the IPCC made have been proven wrong?
Why don't you make one proving prf. Carter wrong?
Proving some flaws discovered after the video was made doesn't prove it to be wrong. And the rest of the video still stands, no smart answers to that?
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
I ran out of time. For an even more comprehensive and devastating disemboweling of Lord Monckton
tinyurl [dot] com/32w6yry
lots of links and laughs.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Those videos are not about Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton is just one person of the thousands and thousands of people, including scientists, that disagree entirely with the notion of antropogenic climate change
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@greenman3610 how can you say it has been debunked? Because you made one of your crappie little vids that a few thousand people watch? A few things on that video were corrected due to slight inaccuracies, for the most part it still stands unbunked.
OurVoice123 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
LOL, that Greenland chart Carter showed is from a paper from Grootes from... 1993. Couldn't Carter find the most recent data? Or are those 'inconvenient'?
Pulsar89 1 year ago
@Pulsar89" That video isn't from 2010 either so it must be wrong aswell"
Very good logic you use
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
Carter's video is from 2007. Yes, very good logic :-)
Pulsar89 1 year ago
@Pulsar89
Does it matter? It changed, yes, but that doesn't change his statements nor the fact that he makes very good points in this video
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
And exactly who is this Greenman3610, that sits anonamously attacking those that attack the rediculous notion that CO2 has the capacity to influence climate.
Lets have him show himself and enter into a real debate in public view. I will happily engage any of these bank sucking shills openly and have a couple of tricks that will close the doors on thier game once and for all. They are frauds plain & simple.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27
just someone that feels we should pay attention to what the combined national science academies, and every established scientific group on the planet are telling us.
that's all.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Your answer is a simple case of Argumentum ad Populum and you know it. A kind of bandwagon approach that asserts, since the majority of scientists believe an argument or choose a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice.
shadowsinthevalley 1 year ago
@shadowsinthevalley
deniers know everything about argumentation except how to present actual evidence, in the form of peer reviewed studies, as I have.
If you have a rebuttal, make it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@shadowsinthevalley - You are absolutely correct... but recent revelations also show that the actual 'consensus' itself is not valid. The 2,500 scientists are far from that number. Key figures in the IPCC are now disputing that figure and revealing it to be untrue.
westcoast1965 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Really!
This just in: "You thought last winter was bad? Wait until this winter," says Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA
Claims to consensus,..... pathetic
Prepare for cold people, more volcanic activity is loading the high levels of our atmosphere with more aerosols = increased albido = colder
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 "exactly who is this Greenman3610, that sits anonamously ..."
Dude. The guy's name is right there in front of you. It's at the start of every video. It's also on his profile page. "Anonamous"...right...
You have "tricks" to close doors? Tricks? Don't you "skeptics" believe that all "tricks" are fraudulent? What are you hiding with your tricks?
PS: If you think it's "ridiculous" that CO2 affects climate, you have nearly two centuries of physics to rebut. Better get started.
cdunford 1 year ago
@pondman27 How about you attack what he has said instead of him? Even in this video he admit an Ad Hom attack isn't enough on its own and rebutts the "science" of Monckton so why don't you do the same? Perhaps because it isn't on your side!
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl The science!
The science, when examined in its basic terms is a fraud. Go look up the thermal conduction, specific heat and molecur weight of Carbon. Then assess where most of it should remain (not drilled for or mined). And what resides between. What you will find is that Carbon is of the earth & has no influence on the climate other than rising in volume in gaseous forms during higher biogenic periods.
pondman27 1 year ago
This greenamn3610 is nothing short of a propagandist that is deperately attempting to support a lunatic hypothesis that is not only unproven in terms of forecasts, but also is designed to make acceptable that billions of human beings are sacrificed.
Greenman3610 & his sorry little clan of AlGore-ithm suckers are in persuit of money & reward from the self same entities that are destroying life in all its forms.
pondman27 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the time the mistake had been realised, Heathrow had cancelled 169 arrivals and departures and Gatwick more than 200. An estimated 50,000 passengers were affected.
Willie Walsh, boss of British Airways, said the shutdown was a gross over-reaction to a very minor risk. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE DECISIONS ON OPENING AND CLOSING OF AIRPORTS BASED ON A THEORETICAL MODEL' he added.
There was no evidence of ash in the skies over London yet Heathrow was closed'
OurVoice123 1 year ago
His Lordship is a courageous rebutter of communistic illuminati based Bilderberg communist new world order pseudo science. Of course in the interests of full disclosure I should state that I am a Canadian who lives 900 feet above sea level.
drmodestoesq 1 year ago
@drmodestoesq I think you should move closer to sea level -
The lack of oxygen seems to be affecting your thinking processes.
11BBell 1 year ago
Sadly this video does not rebute Moncktons views as it (1) only mentions data that has been criticised by Monckton and (2) tries to make fun of the person himself, which I think not the proper way to "debunk" him.
oberlindea 1 year ago
You are doing a great job putting together those videos! Very enlightening, thanks!
psychotrn 1 year ago
I wouldnt be able to resist the urge to prod his eyes back into his head if I met him.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@morehate4uall thats coz he's inbred :P
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
That is the very core of right wing politics, oversimplification of issues and a strong intolerance for ambiguity, this black and white view on the world that they have is laughable, "Send people with aids on a deserted Island, there you go, case closed" What the fuck is wrong with these assholes ? The problem with these dickheads is that, unlike us, they vote so it serves us right.
alexandreleverrier 1 year ago
@alexandreleverrier
So true. It's always the same boneheaded, bigoted, oversimplifying rhetoric.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
the only plausible conclusion from this is that this Monckton guy is just out to make quick buck.
Gdanohrukrodmmtefce 1 year ago
ha, ha, ha, ha, now that was a funny couple of vids.......... i would like to see what greenman would have to say about austrailian professor bob carter saying that global warming is real, but due to natural forces, and not co2 forcing. personally i have the same opinion but hey i am just a avid snowboarder who just fallows climate change as a little hobby. what about solar intensity? allot of professors say that the sun has a much greater effect on temperature than co2 ever will. just curious.
HHOANDGMEN2 1 year ago
@HHOANDGMEN2
bob carter? lol...
'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry ,' said Professor Carter. 'I will address the evidence.'"
nothing happened of course, no evidence
Carter is a member of the right-wing.. "think tank" the "Institute of Public Affairs" + his participation in Ocean Drilling Programs (OIL..) are also known.
aerobique 1 year ago
@HHOANDGMEN2 well i suppose not believing in a problem would allow you to feel ok about using airplanes frequently to reach ski resorts
andy765gtr 1 year ago
@andy765gtr You know, I think there is a lot in what you just said about "not believing in a problem." I believe people have a natural desire for stability. Change is something very disruptive. Essentially what science is telling us is, those SUV's and cheap plane tickets to anywhere you want to do. Yeah, that's got to change. People don't want that kind of change so they try to find a way to make it not true. Therein the climate denier is born.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Denial of a global Kabal that has distorted all that is good within the scientific world in its attempts to gain world domination is to be quite frank, absolutely undeniable.
This video, like so many others from the not so greenman, serves not to provide enlightement for humanity, but rather perversly seeks to seduce people into supporting the killing of thier children.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Very true, greenman sees and acts as if AGW is a religion, defending it like a madman and attacking anyone asking questions. In earlier times he would have been a very good priest/imam. Unfotunately, people know better these days
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon No he doesn't. He looks at denialist claims and rebutts them directly which apparent you can't do, you just attack people because you are utterly deluded.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl
He says he refuses to read any article that doesn't agree with his views. That's the same as religious fanatics do: dismiss anything that doesn't agree with their views as heresy.
And if you had any knowledge of science, you'd know you can't prove a negative: you can't prove something isn't there or isn't happening. Again, the same as with religions: you can't prove there is no God. There is tons of evidence contradicting AGW, even some IPCC members don't believe in it
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon @kcdl
The problem I have with people like him is that he closed of his mind to anything that disagrees with AGW. Anyone who dares speak differently or deny it is blind and stupid. The contrary is true. It doesn't mean you're right because you have a majority. The majority of people used to think the earth was flat and the center of the universe. AGW is science, not religion. If you don't keep an opn mind about it, you trun it into religion and that's my problem
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Tons of evidence hey. Show me ONE peer review article that contridicts it in a significant way. Which IPCC members? Citations please.
kcdl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kcdl
Yup, a lot. Don't start with the peer review crap, it doesn't mean shit when it's done by a group of people who are afraid of getting kicked if they don't agree.
A paper: tinyurl com/39llmm6
replace the " " with "."
and a site with studies: co2science org
List: Won't let me post the link, so just google:IPCC members who disagree with agw
Now, please give me 1 link to a study not funded or affiliated with governments that proves co2 causes climate change
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kcdl "Which IPCC members? Citations please. "
Five bucks says he's talking about Chris Landsea. Unfortunately, Landsea's not actually an AGW skeptic. He withdrew from the IPCC, but he doesn't dispute AGW.
cdunford 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kcdl (Gawd, this terrible spam filter is irritating--let me try re-wording just a bit)
"Which IPCC members? Citations please. "
I'd bet that he's talking about Chris Landsea. Unfortunately, Landsea's not actually an AGW skeptic. He withdrew from the IPCC, but he doesn't dispute AGW.
cdunford 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kcdl
tinyurl com/5laabm: 255 pages incase you have a lot of free time
You can just google: Ipcc members deny agw or something to find detailed reports and lists
Now, please present me one, just one, study proving manmade co2 emissions cause the current climate change. And to make it more interesting: find one that is in no way affiliated with governments or government fundings
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago