Glenn Beck is being punk'd by fictional character Lord Monckton (actually comedian Sacha Baron Cohen in a lot of makeup). The entire conservative anti-global-warming movement was entirely taken in by this fake "lord," this fictional comedic character whose data was gathered by a global network of "xboxes and playstations."
@xscdnm A retraction-- Lord Monckton (not a real lord, never sat in Parliament) may evidently simply be an astonishing parody of himself, rather than a brilliant characterization by Sacha Baron Cohen. Study this "lord's" behavior and exactly what he says in detail in the video clip above, and one can't help but wonder whether it's a joke or a setup, since his behavior and many of his statements are simply bizarre.
@xscdnm He is an actual lord as the title is hereditary. NOT ALL LORDS serve in the House of Lords u idiot! He was Ph.D. science advisor to Marg. Thatcher.
@SvenStadt Yes, evidently this very funny (in both ways) man does actually have a title, even though the British House of Lords has asked him to stop using it because it associates him with Parliament. But this Lord Monckton is a ridiculous parody of a man. It's hard to believe that he is not a comedian impersonating a weirdo. He's just a weirdo.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with (complete) support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@fishblades Please visit the UK parliament website. The Clerk of the Parliaments made a point of making it clear that Monckton is NOT a member of the House of Lords and never has been. The Clerk asked that Monckton desist from claiming to be so, either directly or by implication.
The only legitimate argument against anthropomorphic climate change comes from Richard Lindzen, he has been a member of the IPCC panel and has voiced doubts. His doubts are unproven and the vast majority of his colleagues disagree with him, including the National Academy of Sciences (USA). He is a known contrarian and is playing Devil's Advocate on a very dangerous issue.
Glenn Beck is a tool. Christopher Moncton is a hobby pseudo-scientist who they call when they need a graph that resembles factual information. In the 80's he came up with a "scientific proof" that AIDS originated from homosexuals. For the right amount of cash he'll debunk the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
Jestes ciekaw prawdy smolenskiej? Zastanawiasz sie dlaczego slady sa systematycznie zacierane? Dlaczego media nie mowia wszystkiego chociasz powinny? Wejdz na "zagrozenia org" nie jestes sam/sama. Zapraszamy!
I think you're just a swearing hater because you have nothing better to say. Glenn Beck gets a lot hates and threats as do a lot of people in his position do (Christian or not, Republican or not) yet they go on and don't quit when make a good bit of profit or avoid people, ramble, and try to make a lot of money.
GNC, what is wrong with people like you? Even people I disagree with I believe can be a patriot. All you idiots claim to be open-minded and so liberal and above anyone conservative but many are jerks. If they do what they believe for the country, they are a patriot to me.
Wait, so not only is global climate change not real, but decreased pressure in my tires does not, in fact, lower my mpg? That's strange, I wonder then, why does my fuel efficiency drop when my tires are low? What other explanation is there?
Also, where was the debate? Why would you not have two scientists there debating greenhouse effects and the science behind it, unless you just wanted to support your own personal opinion? I don't care what side you pick on this debate, but this clip is shit.
How come these guys only go after Gore for this and not the scientists? I tell people Global Warming opposition is merely for political gain and ppl get pissed. I just wonder if this is all because Republicans are still pissed that Al Gore got probably the best consolation prize of all time after losing the 2000 election. The fact that this has become another front for DEMS vs GOP tells me that's probably true.
Dude. Righteous vid but I KNOW that global warming is real because Moonbeam, the guy operating the giant puppet at the last WTO meeting protest, told me so.
Thank god there are people like Lord Monkton left in this world who actually think for themselves and are capable of investigating a subject first and not just jumping on a bandwagon! At least now there are a couple of thousand scientists whom are not so scared anymore of losing their funding and can actually speak out regarding the Climate Change myth! How easily people forget that only 35 years ago some U.N nutjobs tried to brainwash people to think the world was heading for a new ice age !
exactly mate.... at least you have a memory and aren't lead into believing all of this now renamed " climate change " crap !! I hope like you that there are plently more people out there whom have the ability to see all of this crap for what it really is !!
Monkton and Gore have exactly the same credentials. That being none. Neither one of them have any scientific credentials at all. However at least Gore backs up his claims with actual scientific evidence (though I am aware sometimes he gets it wrong) while Monkton is a known liar. Monkton is a complete joke and is seen as a laughing stock.
@TruthFamineFloater Yes it is correct. Monkton inherited his seat. In 1999 the House of Lords Act receieved royal ascent stripping him of his right to sit in the House of Lords. Monkton does not have scientific credentials. He has a diploma in journalism.
@StreetPulseParkour Al Gore is not a scientist. Global warming as a result of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 110 years ago. Al Gore's movie was released in 2006. All Al Gore did was relay information that scientists had discovered. While there were errors in it remember Al Gore is not a scientist and global warming is not based off his little movie.
okay, plz explain the melting glaciers in switzerland. Tell me why the are melting faster and faster each year. Noe explain the increase in tsunamis, hurricains etc and why they are becoming more and more severe each year. I win.
Ok, now explain why the polar ice caps of Mars are decreasing several miles every year (faster than ours). Why are the moons of Jupiter and Saturn melting? Some of them were ice but are now liquid seas.
I suppose carbon dioxide on Earth is causing that to?
Wake up and don't swallow what the establishment and media try to spoon feed you. Solar activity has been the cause of the slight rise in temperature in recent times, as it always has been. Not this climate change hoax
@TheMoviesandgames Ha ha, just because you proclaim yourself the winner doesn't make it so. Please explain the thickening of the western Himalayan glaciers. Tell me why they are thickening faster and faster each year. Tell me how you can presume to know the trends of these tsunamis and hurricanes. How long have weather experts been recording weather patterns? In the grand scheme of things, not very long. If you're going attempt debating, don't come at me with "facts" a child could refute.
@VAND1983 okay well tell me, is all that smog good for you? The pollution still destroys eco-systems... the toxins in the air are really bad for us and all sorts of stuff. So even though the theory of global warming is flawed, maybe we should still put effort in cleaning all the pollution up...or at least try to salvage wat we've lost
I would say that's pretty obvious. Gore has become the front man for this movement. It would make sense to take on the guy who won a Nobel prize for supposedly bringing this issue to light.
So what did that video prove? Monckton is an idiot, that's all. By the way, if Americans properly inflated their tires it would reduce our gas consumption by about 15%.
Lord Monckton is a bloody idiot. He has a degrees in journalism and classics. His only claim to fame is having been a "special" advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and he was thrown out of that because he was too embarassing.
There is a word for a particular kind of man to stand in front of a room of world class experts in numerous fields from hundreds of countries with a collectively thousands of years of experience and tell them they are all wrong - with no new evidence to explain why.
And "maverick" is not that word.
As much as I'd love to see the world revolutionised by a far seeing thinker, another Einstein, another Newton, Lord Monckton of Benchley is not that man.
@ToothbrushMan He can't be an idiot then can he? ahahah, And why does he need a claim to fame? And, he is presenting scientific evidence, not creating it.. This allows him to do so without having to be a fucking scientist, right? You don't need a scientist to show you a graph...
the 1 world govt wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are mostly foreigners & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou ... meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie .. take the rusbo blaming global warming on volcanoes ... but volcano eruptions are making the planet dark, grounding thousands of flights ... only the rushbo is worrying about volcano induced global warming .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
Methane reduction is not the lemma premise in the argument against eating meat. Notwithstanding reducing harm to sentient creatures, it also vastly reduces the amount of energy required to feed any number of people. Less energy, more food, with effective distrution = less starvation.
Guess what Beck, there already is a global government, it's called the International Monetary Fund. EVERY major industrialized country is in DEBT, and the IMF in one form or another controls ALL international debt. We've outgrown absolute paternalism, divine right rule, feudalism... it's time we outgrow the paralyzing monetary system.
Lord[y] Monckton is British business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor. Such an expert on global warming. This effete twit [despite his command of the King's English] definitely has a financial stake in this. Bear that in mind when listening. @ 3:40 he claims that the MIT prof that created his graph is "the foremost meteoroligist in the world-he knows more on this subject than anyone else...". That boast usually comes from people who rely on position rather than fact
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Don't comment and shut up everyone! We aren't trained scientists. Just trust the scientists. believe what they say. they are greater than God. Man can change the world. God can't. If scientists say something, believe them. It's their devotion and they are more educated than us. Give them more money, give them your respect and your taxes. We can cool the world, of course we can . We can. we can . Just do it, don't question. Shut up.
You are a moron. Stop your blasphemy and stop thinking you can control the masses. Stop thinking scientists are your "masters"; Everyone can print a Phd, and anyone can mislead a person like you.
@ willisonwx It should only be climate scientists debating as they are the only ones qualified enough to talk about the subject. In fact I've yet to see a global warming television debate where both are climate scientists, or even one. Its baffles me how this pompous aristocrat buisnessman, who has no training in science, thinks his opinion can rival that of climate scientists who have devoted years of their life to studying global warming.
@goofydog07 yeah point taken. it's like everyone wants to see two middle school kids fight when there is an MMA match going on behind the scenes. whatevs.
Right, that message would be "people who aren't climatologists get owned when trying to debate global warming." your comment makes it seem like your missing the point that it works both ways. in other words, "monkton is widely known for his views on global warming, surely if he was owned that would send a message to the public."
@willisonwx Oh I know that, but its pretty clear who's got the winning arguement, and in that case Why wouldn't al gore debate with him, if he's so confident in his arguement he'd understand that if he won a debate against Monkton he would, like you and i said send a message to the public.. If he won that debate my views on global warming would definitely change..
But dont change the subject buddy.. You've got some unanswered questions waiting..
also, there will never be climate change debates on tv featuring true scientists. they do their debating in the journals over the course of years. it would be impossible to have a debate that lay people would be able to follow, while covering all bases.
@SadegoGG Are you sure?? Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?? LOL LOL LOL Al Gore is a douche. Global Warming is the applicator that injects all of his bullshit into the misinformed
@SadegoGG Are you sure?? Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?? LOL LOL LOL Al Gore is a douche. Global Warming is the applicator that injects all of his bullshit into the misinformed
@willisonwx perhaps he'd like to debate Gore because Al Gore has been the most vocal advocate of the Man Made (CO^2) Global Warming theory and almost everybody knows who he is..
@willisonwx Gore is the one who recieved awards for his GW scare. There are ten's of thousands of scientests who signed a patition to have him discredited, why would a scientist debate for it?
@kornstew Barely any of the "ten's of thousands of scientists" were climate scientists. 97% of climate scientists have reached the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real.
Man made global warming believers keep it up. It won't be long till you feel like complete fools. This is not proven science, it's a religion since you have to have faith in an untested hypothesis. sharkblubber, what happened to your 2nd point that is wrong? Go ahead and give the govt. more control idiots!
I'm not a scientist so I won't comment on the issue. Is that correct? I'll shut up and call unqualified scientific commenters horrible names. Should I?
Yes, that's right, actually. Would you argue the theory of gravity? Probably not. When the majority of the scientific community, people who dedicate their lives to accurate, unbiased study of climate change, agree that global warming is real, then it probably is, don't you think? People like you or me don't get to say whether it is real or not, but what we can do in response to it. This is an issue of science, not politics. Your claims that it's a lie are just wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
@jacobryanball10 Pity that the "thousands of scientists" claim is completely bogus. Unless you think a petition where no-one checks the credentials of the respondents is valid. And that "Michael J Fox" and "Gerri Halliwell" are scientists (they are included in the petition). By the way, the person who sent it out faked up a paper to look like an official US Academy of Science scientific paper and attached it to the petition.
Politicians are such buffoons. Simply saying that "no scientific basis supports global warming" and the "the science of global warming is coming apart at the seams" can be done by anyone. These people are not scientists, so they really have no say in the realm of science. The IPCC has confirmed repeatedly that global warming is increasing. We as a public need to stop listening to pompous morons like Glenn Beck and more to scientists who devote their entire lives to studying global warming.
@ sharkbubbler: I have read no paper that confirms these misleading models. A computer model will only show you what you tell it to. There is no direct evidence whatsoever linking Co2 and the rate of warming we have witnessed. There is a reason for that. The effect Co2 has in our atmosphere is to small to detect.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
In addition the paper monkeyton uses does not allow for the black body radiation (the Planck function) in their feedback parameter, they underestimate climate sensitivity. Using the correct equations, you get a feedback parameter and climate sensitivity of -0.125 and 0.82 K, rather than their values of -1.1 and 0.5 K. the paper is flawed but as monkeyton isn't a scientist he misses this.
The lindzen paper was flawed and here is why: 1) the results were not robust/ the paper misinterpret air-sea interactions in the tropics 3) They have compared observations to models prescribed with incomplete forcings 4) More robust methods show no discrepancies between models and observations.
I was in a small church where a nice but simple man stood up and asked to share. "I want to show you a cheap and easy to use tool that can help us save the planet." He dramatically pulled out a pressure gauge and said that if we all just maintained the proper tire pressure we would decrease greenhouse gases by some percent. He added that "The Lord said that if you are faithful in small things you will have authority over larger things in the coming age." I left that congregation.
Monckton is a total and complete fruit cake. He quotes Lindzen, well take a look:
'
Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is seriously in error'
Search it on google. And the pompous moron wants debate? Well in SCIENCE debate is done by peer review. Now Monckton can DEBATE the science by publishing his evidence. Oh and keeping to his bat shit crazy meme if he cant he should shut up and never open his mouth on the subject again
Oha and 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS that is the people involved in the science agree:
'97 climatologists' google it
ALL the worlds scientific institutions! Just try to find a single internationally one that does not. And just about all of the PEER REVIEWED scinece. See:
'Beyond the ivory tower Naomi Oreskes' On google
And Fox news has a 'debate' with 3 know nothing climate deniers? 'Fair and Balanced' yeah my ass...
StunnedByStupidity, 97% of people believed the world was flat, until they were proved wrong. A bunch of climatologists who have never had so many grants since they postulate Global Warming and Armageddon. It's not really in their interest to find any other conclusion. What is even more mystifying is that normally, in science, one remains skeptical until something is proven... there is no hard proof that CO2 does increase warming by that much!
@XMrAverageX that whole earth was flat thing: its actually a misconception that a majority of people ever believed that. someone wrote a book in the 1800s saying Christopher Columbus thought the earth was flat. he obviously didn't, he thought he landed in India. now of course there are cultures that believe that but never in so great an influence as people misconceive it today
Scientific debate has (HAS!) been limited to debating specific methodology, and the drawing of conclusions based on accepted methodology. What is now new and ominous and 1984-like, is the manipulation of the media by the Climate mafia. Green-Fascism is bullying your peer reviewed journals by threatening to attack their "peer-reviewed" status. The economics of scientific research is driven by grant money. If one hopes to make a living in climatology one must please the granting source.
You should sell your radio and buy some books - you are a victim of Exxon propaganda. And calling THE most patient, peaceful, science led action 'green-fascism' is breathtakingly stupid. READ SOME BOOKS and turn off Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones - they think you are too stupid to check the complete nonsense they spout PLEASE prove them wrong...
@XMrAverageX the thing i dont understand is how glenn beck could go as far as saying "i hate the families of 9/11 victims" because he wont accept the fact that the government lied on 9/11 but then turns around and believes that the same government is involved in a hoax of this magnitude. Im not saying whether global warming is real or not but Becks selective skepticism does make one wonder what his real agenda is and who is feeding him issues to harp on.
@TYwokki According to Monckton there is no positive feedback as based on the work of Lintzen & recent satelite data there is no build-up of CO2 . I think that is what he is saying. Agee Gumby he is wrong about the inflated tyres I think . Try it . Maybe you wear out the tyres quicker
I'm not sure where you got the 3.26 figure, but one of the main areas of discussion is the fact that there is no excepted figure minus positive feedbacks. Since we can't know, or can measure, the input by the feedbacks there is no way of estimating what will happen as we warm. In other words, people are currently arguing if we are in a stage of positive feedbacks entering into the climate system or not. Hence there is no prediction figure. Or at least an excepted figure.
TYwokki, you seem to think that a consensus + proof. The greatest scientists are the ones who go against consensus and PROVE otherwise.
I don't agree with the anti-AGW guys because I want to, but because experience tells me every hippie-based global disaster threat has proven to be utter crap, including ones with "all sorts of scientific proof". Rain forests, ozone, food supply, population bomb, AIDS, whales, fresh water, impending ice age, they and others have all turned out to be crap!
The World Meteorological Society has been constructing graphs on climate temp using a variety of sources dating back 8000 years. With various degrees of inaccuracy the same models can go back three time that. Their climate models are the most sophisticated (outside of the military) devises on the earth. Their main World Climate Research Program model says it is. Also,
I don't want to see Politicians/economists such as Gore or Monckton use science to promote their plutocratic goals. Unfortunately, there is, whether anyone likes it or not, an issue between humans and the environment. Your wrong/misinformed about the climate temp.
(for one reason or another) that Climate Change is anthropogenic, but there is equally as respected intellectuals in greater number who believe (for one reason or another) that there is. SURLY we shouldn't listen only to the smaller number of scientist, PURLY because they're saying what we want to hear?
storm intensification and the loss of ice caps are the other more negative signals. Karl Popper wrote about critical review, he also wrote about the importance of Falsifiability, if you understand these concepts youd also understand that there will never be a conclusive scientific agreement on Global Warming. Yes, there is a broad range of highly qualified, intelligent and accredited scientists who dont believe
a definitive conclusion is simply untrue. It is accepted on both sides the climate temperature is warming. Sea level rise, ice core sampling, studies on Red Wood trees in North America and morphological changes in plants flowering/pollination can show this. Ocean acidification from aqueous CO2, changes in ocean/weather patterns, droughts/forest fires,
which leader came out on top - the oil keeps flowing west. So yeah, if you want to look at it as political rather than a moral issue - you'll reach that conclusion every time. Outside of [bullshit] politics however, IN SCIENCE, the idea that there is (on either side of the GW argument)
My bad. What a scatterbrain I am.
It's Christopher Monkton of course.
And Glen Beck, all in the same room, Huh. The things you see when you haven't got a flame thrower with you.
leffehoegaarden 2 months ago
Is there a bigger cunt than John Bolton?
Can't think of one.
leffehoegaarden 2 months ago
Never trust a man with a mustache.
2eelShmeal 2 months ago in playlist NWO SHIT
lets see.. exxon mobile stooge verses nasa and navy data and 98% of climate scientists.. hmmm.. thats a tough one
co2pirate 2 months ago
you all fucking stupid
7jams 3 months ago
Glenn Beck is being punk'd by fictional character Lord Monckton (actually comedian Sacha Baron Cohen in a lot of makeup). The entire conservative anti-global-warming movement was entirely taken in by this fake "lord," this fictional comedic character whose data was gathered by a global network of "xboxes and playstations."
xscdnm 3 months ago
@xscdnm A retraction-- Lord Monckton (not a real lord, never sat in Parliament) may evidently simply be an astonishing parody of himself, rather than a brilliant characterization by Sacha Baron Cohen. Study this "lord's" behavior and exactly what he says in detail in the video clip above, and one can't help but wonder whether it's a joke or a setup, since his behavior and many of his statements are simply bizarre.
xscdnm 3 months ago
@xscdnm He is an actual lord as the title is hereditary. NOT ALL LORDS serve in the House of Lords u idiot! He was Ph.D. science advisor to Marg. Thatcher.
SvenStadt 1 month ago
@SvenStadt Yes, evidently this very funny (in both ways) man does actually have a title, even though the British House of Lords has asked him to stop using it because it associates him with Parliament. But this Lord Monckton is a ridiculous parody of a man. It's hard to believe that he is not a comedian impersonating a weirdo. He's just a weirdo.
xscdnm 1 month ago
Glenn Beck loves liberty so much he gives this nobleman his appropriate princely privileges
That's how American he is, he bows before British nobility.
Disgusting.
Redfingers 3 months ago
@Redfingers Lord Monckton is actually Sasha Baran Cohen... the guy who did Borat and Ali G. He's in a lot of makeup, but it's him and he's trolling.
theoneandonlygio 3 months ago
@theoneandonlygio
He's trolling? You mean like you're doing?
Redfingers 3 months ago
ohh god master troll looooooooolll
Snodgers3rdclass 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with (complete) support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
It's amazing to see a war criminal and a blatant charlatan interviewed by a halfwit motormouth. Quite a show.
As Monckton might say, experto crede, ex scientia vera.
widebody123 6 months ago
@widebody123
It's amazing to see a Liberal attack instead of refute anything they said.
Oh wait no it's not.
fishblades 5 months ago
@fishblades Please visit the UK parliament website. The Clerk of the Parliaments made a point of making it clear that Monckton is NOT a member of the House of Lords and never has been. The Clerk asked that Monckton desist from claiming to be so, either directly or by implication.
widebody123 5 months ago
How is this a debate?
jaykulls 7 months ago
Who is the professor he keeps citing? I can't find him.
therealtruth123 7 months ago
when did crazy eyes from mr. deeds become a lord?!
TBV4050 7 months ago
How is this in any way a debate? It's just Glenn giving Mockton a handy under the table for 9 minutes.
stingernick 8 months ago
@stingernick Monckton is sasha baran cohen a famous comedian just trolling them
Snodgers3rdclass 3 months ago
Lord mockton is my hero. He was just embarrest to say he beloved in the NWO. He does though
127miles 11 months ago
@127miles he doesnt exist haha
slfviirus 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
''Lord'' Monckton is a lying scientifically illiterate moron, just watch this -> /watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
TomValedro 11 months ago
I love Lord Monckton. He's got Betty Davis eyes
1pt21jigawatt 11 months ago 2
DONT YOU EVER SAY FUCKNIG SHITE LIKE ZIZ GAINST GLENN BECK! HE'S A TRUE PATROT AND AN AMZAING PUBLUC SPEAKER!
LankanTVPresenter 1 year ago
to find reviews of the paper monckton refers to search for 'lindzen and choi unraveled'
dam monckton's scary when he looks straight at the camera
augnkn93043 1 year ago
Lord Monckton on form as always, but Glenn Beck's little snort at 2:54 made me chuckle.
northnotsouth 1 year ago
7:33
elyjahatsizzller 1 year ago
Wow that beck and Monkton both look like fucking rats. No surprise coming from idiots on Faux "News".
pbmdh 1 year ago
does Monckton have an xbox?
MrWisePete 1 year ago
his certainty that global warming is a myth is at par with the certainty he had that no one would solve his eternity puzzle within 4 years
vildrobg 1 year ago
Where is the debate?
MoJoSB 1 year ago
The only legitimate argument against anthropomorphic climate change comes from Richard Lindzen, he has been a member of the IPCC panel and has voiced doubts. His doubts are unproven and the vast majority of his colleagues disagree with him, including the National Academy of Sciences (USA). He is a known contrarian and is playing Devil's Advocate on a very dangerous issue.
MrShamuto 1 year ago
@MrShamuto "anthropogenic" NOT "anthropomorphic" - FTW;)
noodoo19 1 year ago
Glenn Beck is a tool. Christopher Moncton is a hobby pseudo-scientist who they call when they need a graph that resembles factual information. In the 80's he came up with a "scientific proof" that AIDS originated from homosexuals. For the right amount of cash he'll debunk the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
MrShamuto 1 year ago
@MrShamuto
He's not real....
SmileyWhiplash 3 months ago
Cooling trend? There is no cooling trend.
encarta007 1 year ago
twenty years of bullshit. well done.
IRcameraman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jestes ciekaw prawdy smolenskiej? Zastanawiasz sie dlaczego slady sa systematycznie zacierane? Dlaczego media nie mowia wszystkiego chociasz powinny? Wejdz na "zagrozenia org" nie jestes sam/sama. Zapraszamy!
yut765iut785uy
gogleNWO 1 year ago
I think you're just a swearing hater because you have nothing better to say. Glenn Beck gets a lot hates and threats as do a lot of people in his position do (Christian or not, Republican or not) yet they go on and don't quit when make a good bit of profit or avoid people, ramble, and try to make a lot of money.
theflowerhead 1 year ago
GNC, what is wrong with people like you? Even people I disagree with I believe can be a patriot. All you idiots claim to be open-minded and so liberal and above anyone conservative but many are jerks. If they do what they believe for the country, they are a patriot to me.
theflowerhead 1 year ago
Wait, so not only is global climate change not real, but decreased pressure in my tires does not, in fact, lower my mpg? That's strange, I wonder then, why does my fuel efficiency drop when my tires are low? What other explanation is there?
Also, where was the debate? Why would you not have two scientists there debating greenhouse effects and the science behind it, unless you just wanted to support your own personal opinion? I don't care what side you pick on this debate, but this clip is shit.
jakeo102 1 year ago
Is anyone else here stunned that a Briton used American football as an analogy? Anglophile FAIL!
newsophist7 1 year ago
Is it not usually the case that in a debate, there are 2 sides, or is this typical Fox news fair and balanced reporting?
leorklier 1 year ago
How come these guys only go after Gore for this and not the scientists? I tell people Global Warming opposition is merely for political gain and ppl get pissed. I just wonder if this is all because Republicans are still pissed that Al Gore got probably the best consolation prize of all time after losing the 2000 election. The fact that this has become another front for DEMS vs GOP tells me that's probably true.
mdjk89 1 year ago
Comment removed
amexnamedluis 1 year ago
Dude. Righteous vid but I KNOW that global warming is real because Moonbeam, the guy operating the giant puppet at the last WTO meeting protest, told me so.
BishopAdamair 1 year ago
INFOWARSoCOM
mrg00ddude 1 year ago
Thank god there are people like Lord Monkton left in this world who actually think for themselves and are capable of investigating a subject first and not just jumping on a bandwagon! At least now there are a couple of thousand scientists whom are not so scared anymore of losing their funding and can actually speak out regarding the Climate Change myth! How easily people forget that only 35 years ago some U.N nutjobs tried to brainwash people to think the world was heading for a new ice age !
schlong878 1 year ago 2
@schlong878 I wouldn't be surprised if should the cooling trend continue the Ice Age fad will come back
badguyswearblack1 1 year ago
@badguyswearblack1
exactly mate.... at least you have a memory and aren't lead into believing all of this now renamed " climate change " crap !! I hope like you that there are plently more people out there whom have the ability to see all of this crap for what it really is !!
schlong878 1 year ago
@schlong878
most of his theories in the past have already been debunked
vildrobg 1 year ago
@vildrobg you're correct , global warming/climate change is a very big scam .
schlong878 1 year ago
@schlong878
i believe u misconstrued
vildrobg 1 year ago
@vildrobg
I believe that you cannot put together a constructive sentence !
schlong878 1 year ago
@schlong878
tell me how my sentence was not constructive?
if u and i share the same meaning of constructive in this context
vildrobg 1 year ago
did he literally not allow the other guest to speak? or was this cut? im confused..
umbrellaBuddha 1 year ago
Monkton and Gore have exactly the same credentials. That being none. Neither one of them have any scientific credentials at all. However at least Gore backs up his claims with actual scientific evidence (though I am aware sometimes he gets it wrong) while Monkton is a known liar. Monkton is a complete joke and is seen as a laughing stock.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself your whole statement is completely incorrect. just for the record. how did he get the lord surname?
TruthFamineFloater 1 year ago
@TruthFamineFloater Yes it is correct. Monkton inherited his seat. In 1999 the House of Lords Act receieved royal ascent stripping him of his right to sit in the House of Lords. Monkton does not have scientific credentials. He has a diploma in journalism.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself hm. fair enough... i still disagree that he is a laughing stock tho.
TruthFamineFloater 1 year ago
@TruthFamineFloater He is a laughing stock. See any reliable scientific website. You will see. He lies through his teeth.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself dude al gore over exaggerates everything. The Inconvenient Truth was alot of bull. Most scientist agree.
StreetPulseParkour 1 year ago
@StreetPulseParkour Al Gore is not a scientist. Global warming as a result of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 110 years ago. Al Gore's movie was released in 2006. All Al Gore did was relay information that scientists had discovered. While there were errors in it remember Al Gore is not a scientist and global warming is not based off his little movie.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
okay, plz explain the melting glaciers in switzerland. Tell me why the are melting faster and faster each year. Noe explain the increase in tsunamis, hurricains etc and why they are becoming more and more severe each year. I win.
TheMoviesandgames 1 year ago
@TheMoviesandgames
Is there an increse in natural diseasters or are they just reported more?
sy2pie 1 year ago
@sy2pie
Both - but the REASONS for that are whats in dispute
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@TheMoviesandgames
Ok, now explain why the polar ice caps of Mars are decreasing several miles every year (faster than ours). Why are the moons of Jupiter and Saturn melting? Some of them were ice but are now liquid seas.
I suppose carbon dioxide on Earth is causing that to?
Wake up and don't swallow what the establishment and media try to spoon feed you. Solar activity has been the cause of the slight rise in temperature in recent times, as it always has been. Not this climate change hoax
RoyalistNationalist 1 year ago
@TheMoviesandgames Ha ha, just because you proclaim yourself the winner doesn't make it so. Please explain the thickening of the western Himalayan glaciers. Tell me why they are thickening faster and faster each year. Tell me how you can presume to know the trends of these tsunamis and hurricanes. How long have weather experts been recording weather patterns? In the grand scheme of things, not very long. If you're going attempt debating, don't come at me with "facts" a child could refute.
VAND1983 1 year ago
@VAND1983 okay well tell me, is all that smog good for you? The pollution still destroys eco-systems... the toxins in the air are really bad for us and all sorts of stuff. So even though the theory of global warming is flawed, maybe we should still put effort in cleaning all the pollution up...or at least try to salvage wat we've lost
TheMoviesandgames 1 year ago
I would say that's pretty obvious. Gore has become the front man for this movement. It would make sense to take on the guy who won a Nobel prize for supposedly bringing this issue to light.
VAND1983 1 year ago
@VAND1983
Its so strange how a man can win a noble prize for a science which still hasnt been proven!
sy2pie 1 year ago
@sy2pie Its strange how a man can win the peace prize when he escalates war. (Obama)
StreetPulseParkour 1 year ago
Comment removed
willisonwx 1 year ago
I thought about a serious comment on this but gave up. Beck is an idiot...
sjeffh 1 year ago
So what did that video prove? Monckton is an idiot, that's all. By the way, if Americans properly inflated their tires it would reduce our gas consumption by about 15%.
qifac 1 year ago
They both deny the NWO... At least lord Monckton should know better.
Taxidriver987 1 year ago
Lord Monckton is a bloody idiot. He has a degrees in journalism and classics. His only claim to fame is having been a "special" advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and he was thrown out of that because he was too embarassing.
ToothbrushMan 1 year ago
@ToothbrushMan so what makes him an idiot?
TheBookArchive 1 year ago
@TheBookArchive
There is a word for a particular kind of man to stand in front of a room of world class experts in numerous fields from hundreds of countries with a collectively thousands of years of experience and tell them they are all wrong - with no new evidence to explain why.
And "maverick" is not that word.
As much as I'd love to see the world revolutionised by a far seeing thinker, another Einstein, another Newton, Lord Monckton of Benchley is not that man.
ToothbrushMan 1 year ago
@ToothbrushMan He can't be an idiot then can he? ahahah, And why does he need a claim to fame? And, he is presenting scientific evidence, not creating it.. This allows him to do so without having to be a fucking scientist, right? You don't need a scientist to show you a graph...
MotheredANiMaL 1 year ago
@MotheredANiMaL
He needs "a claim to fame" in order to be invited to talk at conferences.
He is presenting scientific evidence obtained by scientists - and badly. The whole thing about DDT is a farce.
And you do need scientists do measure the data for the graphs.
ToothbrushMan 1 year ago
the 1 world govt wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are mostly foreigners & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou ... meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie .. take the rusbo blaming global warming on volcanoes ... but volcano eruptions are making the planet dark, grounding thousands of flights ... only the rushbo is worrying about volcano induced global warming .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 1 year ago
Methane reduction is not the lemma premise in the argument against eating meat. Notwithstanding reducing harm to sentient creatures, it also vastly reduces the amount of energy required to feed any number of people. Less energy, more food, with effective distrution = less starvation.
bennymcfarlane 1 year ago
Christopher Monckton is a liar and a scam artist.
kojak1two 1 year ago
@kojak1two Your evidence?
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
@darwinkilledgod - research my friend, research.
kojak1two 1 year ago
@kojak1two Would you mind sharing some of your research then?
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
Guess what Beck, there already is a global government, it's called the International Monetary Fund. EVERY major industrialized country is in DEBT, and the IMF in one form or another controls ALL international debt. We've outgrown absolute paternalism, divine right rule, feudalism... it's time we outgrow the paralyzing monetary system.
IxAMxERROR 1 year ago
gobal warming is not real. it is a scam
guyinkentucky1 1 year ago
Lord[y] Monckton is British business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor. Such an expert on global warming. This effete twit [despite his command of the King's English] definitely has a financial stake in this. Bear that in mind when listening. @ 3:40 he claims that the MIT prof that created his graph is "the foremost meteoroligist in the world-he knows more on this subject than anyone else...". That boast usually comes from people who rely on position rather than fact
Harvey3rdman 1 year ago
Al baby! mmmmmwua!
poopingeneral 1 year ago
@hosweetim89 I disagree with you. :)
SuperDumbCow 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't comment and shut up everyone! We aren't trained scientists. Just trust the scientists. believe what they say. they are greater than God. Man can change the world. God can't. If scientists say something, believe them. It's their devotion and they are more educated than us. Give them more money, give them your respect and your taxes. We can cool the world, of course we can . We can. we can . Just do it, don't question. Shut up.
334286 1 year ago
You are a moron. Stop your blasphemy and stop thinking you can control the masses. Stop thinking scientists are your "masters"; Everyone can print a Phd, and anyone can mislead a person like you.
hosweetim89 1 year ago
@hosweetim89 I agree with you!!
334286 1 year ago
Oh wait.. you were being sarcastic back there.. Didn't realize. My bad.
hosweetim89 1 year ago
Sarcasm doesn't reall work in the face of cold hard fact, though. Whoops.
Gorillazareking 1 year ago
@Gorillazareking My sarcasm always works. It works best when people are serious. Like you.
334286 1 year ago
Yes, I hope you enjoyed my sense of humour, I'm on your side really. I sometimes say stupid things to make a point. Sorry.
334286 1 year ago
@hosweetim89 bull respect those smarter than you and get over yourself
collision1003 1 year ago
@collision1003 I'm sorry lol
hosweetim89 1 year ago
you are in idiot
Zepagainstthemachine 1 year ago
You sir/ma'am, are an idiot!
Kernkamp150 1 year ago
His douchey swagger is not an appropriate way to conduct yourself during an intellectual exchange
ObLiesk 1 year ago
why does he want to debate gore? he should debate a scientist.
willisonwx 1 year ago 18
@ willisonwx It should only be climate scientists debating as they are the only ones qualified enough to talk about the subject. In fact I've yet to see a global warming television debate where both are climate scientists, or even one. Its baffles me how this pompous aristocrat buisnessman, who has no training in science, thinks his opinion can rival that of climate scientists who have devoted years of their life to studying global warming.
jocabuzz 1 year ago
@willisonwx why? hes not a scientist. he doesnt know shit
goofydog07 1 year ago
@goofydog07 yeah point taken. it's like everyone wants to see two middle school kids fight when there is an MMA match going on behind the scenes. whatevs.
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx Gore is widely known for his views on global warming, surely if he was owned that would send a message to the public.
MotheredANiMaL 1 year ago
@MotheredANiMaL
Right, that message would be "people who aren't climatologists get owned when trying to debate global warming." your comment makes it seem like your missing the point that it works both ways. in other words, "monkton is widely known for his views on global warming, surely if he was owned that would send a message to the public."
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx Oh I know that, but its pretty clear who's got the winning arguement, and in that case Why wouldn't al gore debate with him, if he's so confident in his arguement he'd understand that if he won a debate against Monkton he would, like you and i said send a message to the public.. If he won that debate my views on global warming would definitely change..
But dont change the subject buddy.. You've got some unanswered questions waiting..
MotheredANiMaL 1 year ago
Comment removed
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx
also, there will never be climate change debates on tv featuring true scientists. they do their debating in the journals over the course of years. it would be impossible to have a debate that lay people would be able to follow, while covering all bases.
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx
Name some scientists willing to debate him, lol.
Also, Al Gore propagandized global warming so much and he is easy to discredit.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG Are you sure?? Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?? LOL LOL LOL Al Gore is a douche. Global Warming is the applicator that injects all of his bullshit into the misinformed
Jazepentz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SadegoGG Are you sure?? Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?? LOL LOL LOL Al Gore is a douche. Global Warming is the applicator that injects all of his bullshit into the misinformed
Jazepentz 1 year ago
@willisonwx perhaps he'd like to debate Gore because Al Gore has been the most vocal advocate of the Man Made (CO^2) Global Warming theory and almost everybody knows who he is..
sicarius100 1 year ago
@willisonwx Because there aren't any real scientists blaming humans any more. Gore's inconvienint Truth is now Inconvienint Fraud.
Glenn666 1 year ago
@willisonwx
Al Gore doesn't debate.
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@willisonwx Gore is the one who recieved awards for his GW scare. There are ten's of thousands of scientests who signed a patition to have him discredited, why would a scientist debate for it?
kornstew 1 year ago
@kornstew Barely any of the "ten's of thousands of scientists" were climate scientists. 97% of climate scientists have reached the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real.
B01318183 1 year ago
@B01318183 They're so certain they can predict the weather a hundred years from now. They can't even predict the weather next week.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
@willisonwx Because any knowledgeable scientist would completely incapacitate him through logic.
connorbevans 1 year ago
Man made global warming believers keep it up. It won't be long till you feel like complete fools. This is not proven science, it's a religion since you have to have faith in an untested hypothesis. sharkblubber, what happened to your 2nd point that is wrong? Go ahead and give the govt. more control idiots!
textennison 1 year ago
Bolton looks and sounds like an older Ned Flanders from the Simpsons ;)
geniusmarketing08 1 year ago
I'm not a scientist so I won't comment on the issue. Is that correct? I'll shut up and call unqualified scientific commenters horrible names. Should I?
334286 1 year ago
Yes, that's right, actually. Would you argue the theory of gravity? Probably not. When the majority of the scientific community, people who dedicate their lives to accurate, unbiased study of climate change, agree that global warming is real, then it probably is, don't you think? People like you or me don't get to say whether it is real or not, but what we can do in response to it. This is an issue of science, not politics. Your claims that it's a lie are just wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
Gorillazareking 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobryanball10 1 year ago
@jacobryanball10 Pity that the "thousands of scientists" claim is completely bogus. Unless you think a petition where no-one checks the credentials of the respondents is valid. And that "Michael J Fox" and "Gerri Halliwell" are scientists (they are included in the petition). By the way, the person who sent it out faked up a paper to look like an official US Academy of Science scientific paper and attached it to the petition.
indulis1 1 year ago
Politicians are such buffoons. Simply saying that "no scientific basis supports global warming" and the "the science of global warming is coming apart at the seams" can be done by anyone. These people are not scientists, so they really have no say in the realm of science. The IPCC has confirmed repeatedly that global warming is increasing. We as a public need to stop listening to pompous morons like Glenn Beck and more to scientists who devote their entire lives to studying global warming.
Gorillazareking 1 year ago
@ sharkbubbler: I have read no paper that confirms these misleading models. A computer model will only show you what you tell it to. There is no direct evidence whatsoever linking Co2 and the rate of warming we have witnessed. There is a reason for that. The effect Co2 has in our atmosphere is to small to detect.
unstableian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
In addition the paper monkeyton uses does not allow for the black body radiation (the Planck function) in their feedback parameter, they underestimate climate sensitivity. Using the correct equations, you get a feedback parameter and climate sensitivity of -0.125 and 0.82 K, rather than their values of -1.1 and 0.5 K. the paper is flawed but as monkeyton isn't a scientist he misses this.
sharkblubber 1 year ago
Are you saying that that is for sure the number for the climate sensitivity?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
The lindzen paper was flawed and here is why: 1) the results were not robust/ the paper misinterpret air-sea interactions in the tropics 3) They have compared observations to models prescribed with incomplete forcings 4) More robust methods show no discrepancies between models and observations.
sharkblubber 1 year ago
Glenn Beck does a horrible imitation of Alex Jones.
ProsperityGlobal 1 year ago
My problem with the Inconvenient-Truthers is that if the temperature gets cooler, its "weather"; if it gets warmer its "climate".
Q.E.D.
spacehabitats 2 years ago 2
weather over time = climate !
XMrAverageX 1 year ago
@spacehabitats the funny thing about that is the climate is getting colder anyway
KrunchyGoodness 1 year ago
I was in a small church where a nice but simple man stood up and asked to share. "I want to show you a cheap and easy to use tool that can help us save the planet." He dramatically pulled out a pressure gauge and said that if we all just maintained the proper tire pressure we would decrease greenhouse gases by some percent. He added that "The Lord said that if you are faithful in small things you will have authority over larger things in the coming age." I left that congregation.
attilashrugs 2 years ago
I think it would have been even better if you had left ALL churches...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Yes we love sound bites...
at the truth machine FoxNews....
remcovanek2 2 years ago
Monckton is a total and complete fruit cake. He quotes Lindzen, well take a look:
'
Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is seriously in error'
Search it on google. And the pompous moron wants debate? Well in SCIENCE debate is done by peer review. Now Monckton can DEBATE the science by publishing his evidence. Oh and keeping to his bat shit crazy meme if he cant he should shut up and never open his mouth on the subject again
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Oha and 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS that is the people involved in the science agree:
'97 climatologists' google it
ALL the worlds scientific institutions! Just try to find a single internationally one that does not. And just about all of the PEER REVIEWED scinece. See:
'Beyond the ivory tower Naomi Oreskes' On google
And Fox news has a 'debate' with 3 know nothing climate deniers? 'Fair and Balanced' yeah my ass...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
actually 100% of climateologists who are receiving grants based on their support for this political movement would agree.
Sheeple, google "climategate"
mistersmacky 2 years ago
StunnedByStupidity, 97% of people believed the world was flat, until they were proved wrong. A bunch of climatologists who have never had so many grants since they postulate Global Warming and Armageddon. It's not really in their interest to find any other conclusion. What is even more mystifying is that normally, in science, one remains skeptical until something is proven... there is no hard proof that CO2 does increase warming by that much!
But then we are talking about a religion here!
XMrAverageX 2 years ago 2
@XMrAverageX that whole earth was flat thing: its actually a misconception that a majority of people ever believed that. someone wrote a book in the 1800s saying Christopher Columbus thought the earth was flat. he obviously didn't, he thought he landed in India. now of course there are cultures that believe that but never in so great an influence as people misconceive it today
KrunchyGoodness 1 year ago
KrunchyGoodness, Ah so you are telling me that Cave Men knew the world was a sphere?
Or what about the Romans, did they show the earth as a sphere...?
Please don't be an idiot!
XMrAverageX 1 year ago
Scientific debate has (HAS!) been limited to debating specific methodology, and the drawing of conclusions based on accepted methodology. What is now new and ominous and 1984-like, is the manipulation of the media by the Climate mafia. Green-Fascism is bullying your peer reviewed journals by threatening to attack their "peer-reviewed" status. The economics of scientific research is driven by grant money. If one hopes to make a living in climatology one must please the granting source.
attilashrugs 2 years ago
You should sell your radio and buy some books - you are a victim of Exxon propaganda. And calling THE most patient, peaceful, science led action 'green-fascism' is breathtakingly stupid. READ SOME BOOKS and turn off Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones - they think you are too stupid to check the complete nonsense they spout PLEASE prove them wrong...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
StunnedByStupidity, So an inconvenient truth is science is it? and Al Gore is not bat shit crazy. It's full of errors and you know it!
XMrAverageX 2 years ago
@XMrAverageX the thing i dont understand is how glenn beck could go as far as saying "i hate the families of 9/11 victims" because he wont accept the fact that the government lied on 9/11 but then turns around and believes that the same government is involved in a hoax of this magnitude. Im not saying whether global warming is real or not but Becks selective skepticism does make one wonder what his real agenda is and who is feeding him issues to harp on.
qualityrkc 1 year ago
qualityrkc, well I don't know about that... I hate 9/11 truthers, as for AGW fanatics I just think they are swallowed by the media and misguided.
XMrAverageX 1 year ago
@XMrAverageX Did Glenn beck tell you to hate 9/11 truthers?
Obezeballz469 1 year ago
Obezeballz469, no it's just obvious that one should hate twisted, deluded, morons :)
XMrAverageX 1 year ago
I hope Linzen wasn't "debunked" by a horde of 20 year olds carrying a banner.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 5
YES MY LORD
RepublicanNatio 2 years ago
"dipshit I'am the Walrus John Bolten"
lol
PancakeRecipes 2 years ago 2
@PancakeRecipes
LOL.
Dipshit made me laugh too!
UKSecretCourts 2 years ago
That really made me laugh, lool
BASSLINESSSS 2 years ago
That was the calmest glenn beck I have ever seen.
cambiker011 2 years ago
The Copenhagen talks settled on trying to limit warming by no more than 2 to avoid the feedback inputs.
Many believe that is too high a figure.
TYwokki 2 years ago
@TYwokki According to Monckton there is no positive feedback as based on the work of Lintzen & recent satelite data there is no build-up of CO2 . I think that is what he is saying. Agee Gumby he is wrong about the inflated tyres I think . Try it . Maybe you wear out the tyres quicker
tincoffin 2 years ago
I'm not sure where you got the 3.26 figure, but one of the main areas of discussion is the fact that there is no excepted figure minus positive feedbacks. Since we can't know, or can measure, the input by the feedbacks there is no way of estimating what will happen as we warm. In other words, people are currently arguing if we are in a stage of positive feedbacks entering into the climate system or not. Hence there is no prediction figure. Or at least an excepted figure.
TYwokki 2 years ago
TYwokki, you seem to think that a consensus + proof. The greatest scientists are the ones who go against consensus and PROVE otherwise.
I don't agree with the anti-AGW guys because I want to, but because experience tells me every hippie-based global disaster threat has proven to be utter crap, including ones with "all sorts of scientific proof". Rain forests, ozone, food supply, population bomb, AIDS, whales, fresh water, impending ice age, they and others have all turned out to be crap!
GumbytheUnstoppabIe 2 years ago
This is going to be another classic for peer review Richard.
Post more please!
DANCESwithTROLLZ 2 years ago
The World Meteorological Society has been constructing graphs on climate temp using a variety of sources dating back 8000 years. With various degrees of inaccuracy the same models can go back three time that. Their climate models are the most sophisticated (outside of the military) devises on the earth. Their main World Climate Research Program model says it is. Also,
TYwokki 2 years ago
I don't want to see Politicians/economists such as Gore or Monckton use science to promote their plutocratic goals. Unfortunately, there is, whether anyone likes it or not, an issue between humans and the environment. Your wrong/misinformed about the climate temp.
TYwokki 2 years ago
(for one reason or another) that Climate Change is anthropogenic, but there is equally as respected intellectuals in greater number who believe (for one reason or another) that there is. SURLY we shouldn't listen only to the smaller number of scientist, PURLY because they're saying what we want to hear?
TYwokki 2 years ago
storm intensification and the loss of ice caps are the other more negative signals. Karl Popper wrote about critical review, he also wrote about the importance of Falsifiability, if you understand these concepts youd also understand that there will never be a conclusive scientific agreement on Global Warming. Yes, there is a broad range of highly qualified, intelligent and accredited scientists who dont believe
TYwokki 2 years ago
a definitive conclusion is simply untrue. It is accepted on both sides the climate temperature is warming. Sea level rise, ice core sampling, studies on Red Wood trees in North America and morphological changes in plants flowering/pollination can show this. Ocean acidification from aqueous CO2, changes in ocean/weather patterns, droughts/forest fires,
TYwokki 2 years ago
which leader came out on top - the oil keeps flowing west. So yeah, if you want to look at it as political rather than a moral issue - you'll reach that conclusion every time. Outside of [bullshit] politics however, IN SCIENCE, the idea that there is (on either side of the GW argument)
TYwokki 2 years ago