If you believe in global warming you can't argue with people who don't each side has facts that back up each others claims.instead look at the characteristics of the people saying things about global warming. Al gore has gotten rich off of global warming he has lots of houses and power. Lord monckton doesn't charge anything for going around and giving his facts. He is a mathematician and a scientist. He uses his computers and that of people who he deems trustworthy and gets facts from people he
I am not saying that he is 'right' - because in all honesty I would not be in a position to know otherwise. But I have to apply that same degree of scepticism to all scientists and politicians - regardless of the consequences. Consensus has no place in Science and the only issue that needs to be addressed solely concerns CLIMATE SENSITIVITY. Until this question is resolved via observation and measurement and by the application of established theory to the results - then my scepticism remains.
Attack the man, not the argument. Typical! Stick to the issue! Who cares if he's a Lord or not or whether he is accomplished or not. Who cares? Take the man to task on his scientific statements and evaluations. In reality there's no such thing as a LORD of anything. By any measure, it is a self-appointed title which makes people feel special. They aren't!! None of us are!
@MegaPostman77 I am sticking to the issue, the man has no scientific credentials and all of his arguments have been debunked by scientists. He even quoted scientists who publicly responded, saying he was distorting their claims to support his own conclusions.
What is his response to the scientists that debunked him? LEGAL ACTION!
He's attempting to silence his critics.
If you think he's honest please watch potholer54s series on moncktons scientific dishonesty. No politics just science!
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
The difference between Lord Monckton and all the alarmists boils down to this one truth: Lord Monckton is intellectually honest whereas the 'others' are not. It really is this simple.
He can't even be honest about his title, his job, his career, his achievements let alone can he be trusted to give lectures on climate.
Have you even read his bio on his own website? he claims to be a nobel prize winner, have devised the strategy which won the falklands war and even claims he has found the cure to HIV and several other diseases.
Amazing for someone who pretends to be a lord & refuses to drop the fake title despite documented exposure of it.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Why doesn't Al Gore just debate him if his ideas are supposedly false? Like Gillard's carbon tax, if it is such a good policy why not take it to an election?
I just experienced "climate change", it was about 58 degrees out on Sunday, today, Tuesday its 18 degrees outside with 4" of snow. Quite a change. I guess that's why they changed it from "Global Warming" because their findings weren't matching their Hypothesis. Can someone explain to me how if Earth at its birth, a smoldering rock bathing in "primordial soup" smothered in Methane and Ammonia gas, survived all that and propogated life. And now all of a sudden youre worried about a little Carbon?
Heres a good one for you seriously misguided believers in global warming (ooops i mean climate change cos the earth ISNT warming) Shall we blame the medieval warm period on cows farting? You know there is a reason we have places in the UK called the Vineyard or Vine Street because during the said warm period we used to grow grapes here in abundance. Funnily enough we dont anymore. On one of the coldest European winters so far since records began grow some common sense FFS!!!!!!
@strakercrows "warming (ooops i mean climate change" The term climate change has always been used since mankind began studying the climate.
watch?v=4Q1lOr7dbJA
watch?v=mqMunulJU7w&feature=channel_video_title
The medieval warm period was caused by a slight increase in solar irradiance and decrease in volcanic activity. It was only a regional, not global event and was cooler than today
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!
The only thing I disagree with here is the DDT issue. That is a poison & there are other creative ways we could solve the malaria problem.
Al Gore is a NWO pusher & his information is a ruse & a rabbit hole filled with lies & scare tactics. They got their emissions trading scheme & carbon tax bullshit & more emotional energy to feed off of. We are ascending & all the planets in our solar system are going through this change. We need to be in our Light Bodies, not in a low vibration of shame/fear
I've heard his arguments were weak but I didn't realise they were this weak. Every point he put forward in this video is out of context and can be countered with a scientific rebuttal. The man is a debater / political advisor, not a scientist let alone a climate change expert with any credibility.
One thing that makes me smile is that EVERY single person in the audience looks like they are above 55 years old. I think that speaks volumes for the future and the well-informed younger generation.
Monckton is a joke. It's not until the 8th minute that he presents anything disputing the AGW consensus. He simply tells jokes, insults, misleads, and blathers on.
1) He announces how he will back up his position with scientific documentation, not too subtly suggesting that those following consensus can't or don't. Anyone who's glanced at the freely downloadable IPCC reports knows that they are almost sentence by sentence documented by the peer reviewed literature.
2) He begins calling this an IPCC "manufactured" issue. Again, the IPCC is just summarizing the science. Science is doing the "manufacturing" - sneaky evil scientists!
3) His hypocrisy is astounding. At 6:15, he nobly declares "we have to offer up the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but he barely catches his breath before, at 6:28, engaging in shameless distortion. He shows the Guilbeault (of Greenpeace) 2005 quote, which is misleading in this context-free isolation.
Anyone who knows anything about this subject understands what Guilbeault's quote means (does that include Monckton?), and that it's 100% absolutely correct. Monckton somehow neglected "the whole truth" within 15 seconds of demanding it(!), and misrepresented a true and honest statement as an example of a lie. His graphic flashes "We're all gonna lie!" with the quote - amusingly ironic, as anyone who knows anything about this must conclude the graphic means "we all DENIERS are gonna lie!"
4) Next up, at 6:35 (20 seconds from his noble "the whole truth" posturing) he goes into the "9 lies" in Al Gore's movie, as found by a UK Judge. Monckton of course referred to those as "lies" that Gore "perpetrated", and said (leaving it ambiguous that it's Monckton's words, not the judge's) that corrections are needed before "innocent schoolchildren" can be "subjected to this rubbish." Do you think Monckton presented "the whole truth"? If so, then you're a fool.
The judge called it "broadly accurate" and that its main points about humans causing global warming, with eventual serious harm, were very well supported by the peer-reviewed research. Monckton gave "the whole truth"? From the BBC: "Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus."
5) At 7:32, Monckton says "we have a scientific phrase for this, we scientists, ...". His bio: education in journalism and classics. Work as a writer, journalist, entrepreneur, inventing/selling a cool game, and non-elected political posts (notably a policy adviser to Thatcher). "We scientists"?
6) His 9 year graph: a) I don't trust him b) Which IPCC report? c) Lawyer cherry-picking data - change his time scale slightly, and you'll either lose statistical significance or the effect
6d) This is about CLIMATE, so 9 years is the wrong scale. Jim Hansen (an actual "we scientists") compared his famous 1988 predictions before Congress against the measured temp record over the next SEVENTEEN years - and achieved remarkable accuracy. Hansen, being a REAL scientist, warned that the accuracy of the predictions was misleading for various reasons, and that the time frame too short to draw confident conclusions.
6e) The temporary pause in temp growth is accounted for in the literature (Smith and Keenlyside) by a recent greater understanding of ocean currents permitting predictions on a shorter decade-level scale. (Years ago, Smith predicted recording breaking temps for half the years 2009-2014. 2010 will be #1 by the time it's done. Lucky guess?)
7) Trust this "we scientists" journalist about climate science? a) Engineering Prof John Abraham of the U of St Thomas, gave a detailed point-by-point, virtually slide-by-slide refutation of a Monckton talk there. b) This month, 21 ACTUAL climatologists filed with Congress a detailed refutation (best called "a shredding") about Monckton's House testimony earlier this year (google the Guardian's "'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science").
i don tknow why he has been sayong there has been warming when in the last ten yesrs it has bneen getting cooler. ClimATE Gate, I guess he loves to debate.
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed your idea that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change. That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
No Mate! We should obviously ask graphics designers like Peter Sinclair a.k.a. Greenman3610. His scientific background, allows him to absorb the vast knowledge of Al Gore (he spent time with him, you know...)
I wonder if Al gore actually did convince him that we find millions of centigrades if we dig down 20 kilometers.
@indulis1 "being a part of a generation that used up as much of the earth's resources as possible,..."
You are right that the fossil fuel supply is finite. It should be common knowledge what the Hubbert curve is and what are the implications.
Al I am saying is 1) the climate have been changing since the formation of our planet.. 2) the Keeling curve is 52 years long and does not correlate well with the hundreds of thousand years long temperature proxies. 3) Globalists are abusing the issue.
@judomagyar The issue is that at the times when the climate was a lot hotter, the sea levels were also tens of metres higher. I don't want that! Also, lots of species died out due to the inhospitable environment at those times. I don't particularly want that either. SO, just because it was warmer before does not mean we should try our best to get back there, we will probably not like it when we get there.
@judomagyar So what one ex-politician does with his real estate portfolio somehow eliminates more than 20 years of scientific research and data that proves climate change is happening, and it is linked to mankind's CO2 emissions? That is the sort of un-logic and un-thinking that deniers are renowned for. Don't address the reality, slippery eel the discussion onto something of minor relevance.
@indulis1 What Gore does, will not change the cause-effect relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and the normal changes in climate. When Gore says one thing and does another, it makes him not credible. The un-logic is when you imagine correlation between the Keeling curve and long term changes in global temperatures.
@judomagyar It is not MY imagining. I am not qualified to comment on correlation or not. Neither are you. Any more than we are qualified to do liver surgery or cite opinions on other specialised professions where knowledge and experience count. So, when 98%+ of all experts in a field agree on something, that is really it. The opinions, ramblings, and other noises from non-experts is just idle chatter keeping us from actually starting to do as much as we can to avoid problems in the future.
@indulis1 "98%+ of all experts in a field agree "
Well, is those experts are all getting grants to study "global warming caused by CO2", it is not in their interest to find that there is no global warming.
On the other hand if we include all scientists, not just the ones that make their living studying "global warming caused by CO2", the is not 98% of them that say that it is proven that CO2 drives global climate. Like the numerous geologist in the international geological conference.
@judomagyar Where is your source that experts are "all getting grants to study global warming caused by CO2" (implying that they must agree to get $). Deniers also say scientists can't make up their minds because they predicted a new ice age in the 1970s. Which is it, they can't make up their minds, or they are all conspiring? Or maybe you're mistaking this for how deniers were paid to prove warming wasn't done by CO2. $16M. Nice work if you can get it. UCS report "Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air".
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed the bit that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change? That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed the bit that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change? That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
@judomagyar PS As far as I know, Al Gore has to live somewhere. And I don't think he is prohibited from selling before a disaster is he? Is there a list of "approved places" for him to live?
@judomagyar This is a classic debating diversionary tactic. When faced with the facts, divert ot something else. Excellent, you are learning well from Monckton, the "master-debater" of all time!
Look for John Abraham Reply Monckton here on youtube, and then you can see with what expertise Monckton distorts and misrepresents the "peer reviewed science" that he offers as proof. A master-debater par excellence.
@substanti8 ROFL are you serious? greenman is an idiot, a book burner, his videos alone, provoke "making fun" "teasing" are proof he is as bad as the Nazis, he refutes no data, he refutes no theory, ask yourself why? maybe we should stop his pay slip from being processed and once his means of money ceases so will the lies he spins, sounds familiar? Saudi Arabia? yeah?
@0PsycoDad0 emotional rants, have you watched greenmans posts on debunking monckton?, save your jester red book party line bullshit for the courts. greenman posts nothing related to AGW, you "believers" need to wake up
@0PsycoDad0 emotional rants? have you watched any of greenmans opinions?, you point the finger at me about rants? just watch his post on monckton, he starts by attacking moncktons appearance...greenman is a shill and a paid for one to be exact,, he still believes in the hockey stick graph for gods sake.
@substanti8 HAHAHAHAHA! Those videos from Sinclair rely on ad hominem rubbish. I mean - the first 2:30 of the first one is just personal attacks - no content just clips from movies and silly music - WHOAH i guess we'd better raise the price of energy 4 fold for someone's idiotic YT video and raise food as well so the poor can STARVE. The key issue is whether or not adding CO2 to the atmos makes much difference and it makes stuff-all difference. What a sucker you are.
@substanti8 DDT deaths are absolutely true, and the science used to ban it, in America, was all falsified. Look it up in the Congressional records. Read, think, learn, know the truth
There is no need to enter into international agreements that will give control of a huge amount of money to UN Bureaucrat's. Of course, when sun cycle 24 comes and we will have some satellites knocker out, the AGW religious crowd will blame CO2 in the air. They will be as irrational as ever. They will demand to establish an international CO2 police, etc...
@judomagyar Yup, and when Santa comes down the chimney and places the little red wagon under my tree, we will all know that Santa is real ! In the Seventies the Liberal's back then told us about the Ozone layer being destroyed and CFC's were the cause. They screamed an Ice Age was coming, and that it would take 150 years for the Ozone to heal. They lied. 1970's were the hottest decade on record, and the Ozone is already twice as thick in the thin spots. Read, think, and learn the truth.
I bet your beloved Lord holds his belly for so many dimwits fall for his bogus "assertions". He´s very cunning on 1on1 discussions and extremely good at finding ones weaknesses.
Yet even the vid you mentioned comes to the conclusion that man made global warming is a fact EVEN considering the cosmic ray cloud formation (6:55-end?)
Monckton is working the audience just like Al Gore does.
The difference is that, Monckton is appealing to common sense, Gore appeals to emotions And Monckton, unlike Gore, knows that the temperature inside our planet is NOT millions of degrees..How can anyone, who passed 8th grate science, take Al Gore's scientific opinion seriously?
@judomagyar Monckton just distorts and misrepresents his "facts" by misquoting the science he presents as his "evidence". See John Abrahams Reply Monckton either on youtube or via web search (original flash presentation is best). Time and again, Monckton says somthing is supported by the science on his presentation charts, but it turns out to be the opposite (and there are emails from the authors Monckton misquotes as proof as well as links to the original papers).
@0PsycoDad0 You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time, (my best GWB-USH impersonation) ,have you heard this saying before? when you AGW people come up with hard facts and data that is openly available for everyone to see and review, and not projections and models, but real data that proves beyond doubt that AGW will be the end of us all, then and only then ring your bells. otherwise STFU and let science take its course.
@0PsycoDad0 MushroomDad, Global warming was here before caveman, will be here long after you. By the way so hasn't Global cooling. Also these are the same parasites that you follow that claimed an Ice Age in the 1970's, look it up. Read, think, learn the truth
@0PsycoDad0 This is the second most grotesque videos i've ever come across on U tube. Anyway, well said. Politicians are expert manipulaters of the facts.
...presentation after presentation by the bed wetters... Ha!!!! LOL - this guy is an absolute scream!!! And he delivers the lines totally deadpan!! I love it!!!
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earths Climate (January 12, 7:34 AM Examiner Dianna Cotter)
Dr. Zagoni explains: Since the Earths atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O,was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
You are correct! Real scientists do not jump to conclusions!
They run experiments.
Many in the AGW crowd said: " we can not think of anything else, there fore it must be human produced CO2. And they don't even include one line of code about clouds in their climate models.
Also we can wait another 5-10 years and it will be obvious to even Al Gore that we are started to cool.
@judomagyar You are right, lets continue to run a great big experiment on the whole planet, keep releasing lots of CO2, and see what happens in "5 to 10 years". Your kids will thank you for it when you are wrong (and you must concede that you might be). Even if you aren't wrong, will they thank you for being a part of a generation that used up as much of the earth's resources as possible, as quickly as possible?
It´s also funny how the skeptiks´re useing them as figureheads of "truth" whereas the scientific comunity looks with wary suspicion on them. Of course all scientist collude to hide the truth as soon as the don´t support your paranoid agenda....
Does anyone knows what happened to Prof Bob Carter, James Cook Univ, Queensland who presented a number of brilliant talks dismissing global warming as a hoax? I thought that Prof Carter would have featured at least a few times with Lord Monckton's visit to Australia, but I did not see him in any of the videos posted on YouTube.
Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making
the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.
All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of man-made climate change. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology & propaganda.
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge
authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - T.H. Huxley
I don't understand what you think he's lied about. Jones did say all the things that scrollandkey alleged he did. The fact that he didn't include Jones' overall sentiment doesn't diminish those facts, though. To the contrary: Jones' staunch adherence to climate change alarmism despite his admission of all these points (he also said that we've seen global cooling through most of the 21st century) demonstrates the deep religiosity of AGW eschatology and how much it should not be trusted.
If you´d be able to read AND understand texts then after having read the BBC interview it should become somewhat clear that "skeptiks"´re dimwited cave dwellers who twist and turn facts in their favor regardless of content and logic.
"Jones' overall sentiment doesn't diminish those facts," LOL! You´ve shown before to be completely empty minded and incapable of proper thinking so my first guess is GET AN EDUCATION!
Who are you to tell people to get an education? Honestly, you would lose a 3rd grade debate. I remember way back in primary school when we first started debating my teacher explained that there's no use in just calling someone stupid or wrong, you have to rebut their argument and reveal the flaw.
This idea hearkens way back to Aristotle. Basically, you first explain the fallacy. THEN you can call your opponent stupid. Saying that they're stupid therefore wrong only makes you look worse.
Or to put it another way, how can you call someone uneducated when basic tenets of English spelling have gone right through you? Just what is a "skeptik"? YouTube even has an automatic spell checker, for Christ's sake -- just how "dimwited" are you?
"when my spelling is flawed..." Just making up quotations now?
I wasn't calling you up on your spelling to impugn any argument you made about global warming (come to think of it, have you actually made any so far, or have you just called anyone who disagrees stupid?) I only point out your spelling when you decide to call me uneducated and reveal your own lack of education in one fell swoop.
"...correcting other ppls grammar." I haven't even mentioned your grammar.
WHOA, really? I'd better keep it coming if that's how you feel! El oh el!
"your theory"
Seriously what's with all the made up quotations? You keep calling me a kid, accusing me of having no education, and making up things I say, all just to avoid actually addressing what I say.
Whatever happened to the null hypothesis? Very well, I'll indulge you since it's only taught in any first year science class so you wouldn't know any better.
If you want a reason why it's "BETTER to use" the skeptical view, rather than why it's simply correct (and I don't blame you for wanting to change the terms of the debate), I'll cite for starters that the raising of food prices that AGW mitigation causes will increase starvation rates and third world stagnation.
Some dimwit hadn´t even an idea of the very definition of temperature!
His "skeptics" claims were exactly yours so there´s nothing to it.
Praising Lord Moron wouldn´t do anything and at least he knows he´s lieing and i bet makes fun of it, playing around with some dimwited lower class idiots.
"Jones is the expert" Okay, I'll cite Jones then. When asked if there has been global cooling since January 2002, Jones acknowledged that there has been a negative trend of -0.12C per decade.
Your intention to twist it the skeptics way is hillarious.
When you once understand your cherrypicked argument , you´ll notice that despite this being true the positive temperature trend isn´t broken. After a learning statistics you´ll understand why a trend isn´t linear when it´s depicting a non-linear system.
Kid get an education and i seriously mean no homeschooling..
If you have a problem with linearity, take it up with Jones. He's the one who said there's a trend -- although give him a break, I think you're taking him out of context to assume that he means a linear trend. However almost all allegations of global warming have tried to explain it in a linear context. How convenient that you no longer find this satisfactory now that it no longer fits your argument.
When in fact I have been studying the topic with a trained scientific mind for many years....
Presumably we both want the planet and people to prosper - but where you see right wing scum I see social engineering from the socialist left. Like most your intentions are for the best, but like most you have allowed yourself to buy into the dogma - ask yourself why you regurgitate the same propaganda as your masters?
Look nutter EVERYTHING that goes on in a right wing mind. SOCIAL ENGINEERING - (even if that was the goal and - unfortunately it aint) completely trashes free market capialism on almost all levels FOR ALL PEOPLE - REALITY YET AGIN is against you!
And just for the record can you tell us what has caused the warming over the last 30 years? Oh there's a suprize eh? I bet it's the faeries...
that should have been '... in a right wing mind has NOTHING to do with reality' - I ran out of space deleted and rearranged and it then made no sense...
Yes socialist social engineering trashes free market capitalism - thats the point of socialism in part..
As Monckton points out (and Richard Lindzen of MIT, google him if you don't know) - it is illogical to conclude that CO2 is responsible for the warming because CO2 should in theory cause some ill defined warming and there has been some warming. The globe hasn't warmed for the last 15 years, its cooled over the last 10 years. How do you explain that verifiable fact?
Are you really a nutter as you name implies? look take the unfair societies (e.g. The US, UK, Portugal, New Zealand) and compare them to the fairer societies (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan). They are on average happier, healthier, less fat, live longer, there is less crime, fewer are in prison, mentally more healthy, more trusting of neighbors, are less racists, sexist, richer - sound just awful eh?
'the spirit level equal' on you tube - or get the book 'The Spirit Level'
And you don't want a pay rise for another 30 years I take it?
'paul krugman income' on you tube
NO RISE FOR THE BOTTOM and a TINY rise for the middle FOR THIRTY YEARS!
Oh and I have heard of Lindzen alright. And can I just get this right, if I show he is full of shit you will abandon your delusions (BTW - you have been at this for years and that is all you have?)?
'lindzen debunked again progress' on google.
And you agree it is the faeries causing the warming I take it?
faeries? Is that joke spelling for fairies? I'll tell you what caused the warming, the same thing that is likely causing the cooling. And the climate fluctuations for the last 4.5 billion years.
CO2 is just one small part to the equation - the only reason its being focussed on is because its tied to energy production and wealth via industry. What better way flex global control over economy than focus on CO2 ?almost exclusively?
Boy you people are just SO stupid if the issue wasn't so important then I would tell you what you could do with your stupidity. IT AINT THE EFFIN SUN MPORON. You go get me a graph that shows the sun has increased since the late 50's - you wont find one BECAUSE THE SUN HAS BEEN LEVEL OR COOLING - SHEEZ...
And it is shown your Lindzen was bollocks and like the typical right winger heave the gaol posts further down the field and appeal to a tinfoil hat explanation - YOU ARE INSANE!
I didn't say it was the sun - but clearly that is part of the complex climate equation - and if you deny that then you are the insane one.
I have seen no evidence that Lindzen's logic is flawed - he has a measured and scientific mind rather than the emotional state of panic non scientists and UN politicians are exhibiting.
Explain to me the decline is global temperatures over the past 10 years given that CO2 levels continue to rise - thats right - you cannot.
Ah right years of study, it aint the Sun, it aint CO2 and it aint the faeries? Yet shockingly you don;t know what it is?
Look those papers in that article are peer reviewed and trash his stupid nonsense - YOU DIDN'T READ IT - there's a suprise. Not only that but he is a NOTORIOUS denier and has been trashed by A FELLOW DENIER! Yet still fruit loops bloke wont face reality.
'NASA climate graph' GOOGLE IT.
Now you stupid moron, see that red line, did it stop rising in 2000? Sheez...
The world is not dying you plonker :) At least not due to CO2.
The real danger to the earth is in the form of actual bio-toxins and heavy metals - clean food and drinking water are likely to be the real problems in the future, not some minor fluctuation up or down in temperature as has always historically been the case.
Right, like its been 4 deg warmer during the mid evil warm period when crops and the people flourished? Hmm, the planet is still here after that hike in global temperatures - and where where the SUVs then hmmm?
Rather than just repeating the same nonsense you hear, try and get a clue instead?
You realise that many mainstream AGW proponents are now predicting the earth is going into a cooling phase - right? Research it.
Fact is they are just covering there behinds with new models to fit the observables - all the while stating that the globe is going to warm in the long run. Whatever.
The planet is NOT NOT NOT NOT going to cool your fucking dip shit. Like all the other bollox the guy who wrote the paper denies the sping put on it by the tin foil hat brigade.
And you might like to give fucking references for your stupidity eh?
You might want to check it out and educate yourself then with the latest research. After the record low temperatures in the northern hemisphere this winter many scientists are indicating a cooling trend may be upon us. Remember the global cooling scare of the 70s?
Its not my job to research for you, but while we are at it, where are your references?
'NASA makes it official: 2000s were the hottest decade on record, 2009 tied for second warmest year' google it
SO NASA says second warmest year on record and we are heading towards an ice age? And I am the one to educate myself? How fucking old are you kid?
Oh and the old its not my job to prove you right. So if I say there are faeries at the bottom of my garden it is for you to prove me wrong or there are? And can you? So you now think I have faeries eh? MORON!
If you believe in global warming you can't argue with people who don't each side has facts that back up each others claims.instead look at the characteristics of the people saying things about global warming. Al gore has gotten rich off of global warming he has lots of houses and power. Lord monckton doesn't charge anything for going around and giving his facts. He is a mathematician and a scientist. He uses his computers and that of people who he deems trustworthy and gets facts from people he
Princeofknowelege 4 days ago
I am not saying that he is 'right' - because in all honesty I would not be in a position to know otherwise. But I have to apply that same degree of scepticism to all scientists and politicians - regardless of the consequences. Consensus has no place in Science and the only issue that needs to be addressed solely concerns CLIMATE SENSITIVITY. Until this question is resolved via observation and measurement and by the application of established theory to the results - then my scepticism remains.
MegaPostman77 1 month ago
Attack the man, not the argument. Typical! Stick to the issue! Who cares if he's a Lord or not or whether he is accomplished or not. Who cares? Take the man to task on his scientific statements and evaluations. In reality there's no such thing as a LORD of anything. By any measure, it is a self-appointed title which makes people feel special. They aren't!! None of us are!
MegaPostman77 1 month ago
@MegaPostman77 I am sticking to the issue, the man has no scientific credentials and all of his arguments have been debunked by scientists. He even quoted scientists who publicly responded, saying he was distorting their claims to support his own conclusions.
What is his response to the scientists that debunked him? LEGAL ACTION!
He's attempting to silence his critics.
If you think he's honest please watch potholer54s series on moncktons scientific dishonesty. No politics just science!
digitised 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
checkyoursources 1 month ago
The difference between Lord Monckton and all the alarmists boils down to this one truth: Lord Monckton is intellectually honest whereas the 'others' are not. It really is this simple.
MegaPostman77 7 months ago 2
@MegaPostman77 Intellectually honest?
He can't even be honest about his title, his job, his career, his achievements let alone can he be trusted to give lectures on climate.
Have you even read his bio on his own website? he claims to be a nobel prize winner, have devised the strategy which won the falklands war and even claims he has found the cure to HIV and several other diseases.
Amazing for someone who pretends to be a lord & refuses to drop the fake title despite documented exposure of it.
digitised 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
Comment removed
opticalprism 8 months ago
Potholer54 has done a great job debunking Monckton's crap. Here's the first video in the series
watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&feature=related
Richard482 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this man has no credibility whatsoever...
Bunyipz 9 months ago
Very nice, well done.
Mirkwoods 9 months ago
Why doesn't Al Gore just debate him if his ideas are supposedly false? Like Gillard's carbon tax, if it is such a good policy why not take it to an election?
euromellows 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just experienced "climate change", it was about 58 degrees out on Sunday, today, Tuesday its 18 degrees outside with 4" of snow. Quite a change. I guess that's why they changed it from "Global Warming" because their findings weren't matching their Hypothesis. Can someone explain to me how if Earth at its birth, a smoldering rock bathing in "primordial soup" smothered in Methane and Ammonia gas, survived all that and propogated life. And now all of a sudden youre worried about a little Carbon?
makinmimis77 1 year ago
Heres a good one for you seriously misguided believers in global warming (ooops i mean climate change cos the earth ISNT warming) Shall we blame the medieval warm period on cows farting? You know there is a reason we have places in the UK called the Vineyard or Vine Street because during the said warm period we used to grow grapes here in abundance. Funnily enough we dont anymore. On one of the coldest European winters so far since records began grow some common sense FFS!!!!!!
strakercrows 1 year ago 2
@strakercrows lol so your saying global warming does happen?
scottpastry 1 year ago
@strakercrows "warming (ooops i mean climate change" The term climate change has always been used since mankind began studying the climate.
watch?v=4Q1lOr7dbJA
watch?v=mqMunulJU7w&feature=channel_video_title
The medieval warm period was caused by a slight increase in solar irradiance and decrease in volcanic activity. It was only a regional, not global event and was cooler than today
watch?v=G80mIbF5yEg&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=3AzimS2D7WA&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 8 months ago
fuck yeah DDT rulez.
MOAR ddt!
willisonwx 1 year ago
Help yourself to having fun at this group of climate change con artists
Bayside Climate Change Action Group
75 Vincent St
SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191
Ms Lucy Allinson
Phone: 03 9533 4863
Email: vitaldifference@optusnet.com.au
MRMILO57 1 year ago
@MRMILO57
moron is moron
Bunyipz 9 months ago
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!
ytru654uy4654uyr6754yr
gogleNWO 1 year ago
The only thing I disagree with here is the DDT issue. That is a poison & there are other creative ways we could solve the malaria problem.
Al Gore is a NWO pusher & his information is a ruse & a rabbit hole filled with lies & scare tactics. They got their emissions trading scheme & carbon tax bullshit & more emotional energy to feed off of. We are ascending & all the planets in our solar system are going through this change. We need to be in our Light Bodies, not in a low vibration of shame/fear
DaliaDawn 1 year ago
I've heard his arguments were weak but I didn't realise they were this weak. Every point he put forward in this video is out of context and can be countered with a scientific rebuttal. The man is a debater / political advisor, not a scientist let alone a climate change expert with any credibility.
One thing that makes me smile is that EVERY single person in the audience looks like they are above 55 years old. I think that speaks volumes for the future and the well-informed younger generation.
veneersneer 1 year ago
Whatever happened to Al Gore anyway? He seems to have disappeared :s
CokeSupply 1 year ago 5
Monckton is a joke. It's not until the 8th minute that he presents anything disputing the AGW consensus. He simply tells jokes, insults, misleads, and blathers on.
1) He announces how he will back up his position with scientific documentation, not too subtly suggesting that those following consensus can't or don't. Anyone who's glanced at the freely downloadable IPCC reports knows that they are almost sentence by sentence documented by the peer reviewed literature.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
2) He begins calling this an IPCC "manufactured" issue. Again, the IPCC is just summarizing the science. Science is doing the "manufacturing" - sneaky evil scientists!
3) His hypocrisy is astounding. At 6:15, he nobly declares "we have to offer up the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but he barely catches his breath before, at 6:28, engaging in shameless distortion. He shows the Guilbeault (of Greenpeace) 2005 quote, which is misleading in this context-free isolation.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Anyone who knows anything about this subject understands what Guilbeault's quote means (does that include Monckton?), and that it's 100% absolutely correct. Monckton somehow neglected "the whole truth" within 15 seconds of demanding it(!), and misrepresented a true and honest statement as an example of a lie. His graphic flashes "We're all gonna lie!" with the quote - amusingly ironic, as anyone who knows anything about this must conclude the graphic means "we all DENIERS are gonna lie!"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
4) Next up, at 6:35 (20 seconds from his noble "the whole truth" posturing) he goes into the "9 lies" in Al Gore's movie, as found by a UK Judge. Monckton of course referred to those as "lies" that Gore "perpetrated", and said (leaving it ambiguous that it's Monckton's words, not the judge's) that corrections are needed before "innocent schoolchildren" can be "subjected to this rubbish." Do you think Monckton presented "the whole truth"? If so, then you're a fool.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
The judge called it "broadly accurate" and that its main points about humans causing global warming, with eventual serious harm, were very well supported by the peer-reviewed research. Monckton gave "the whole truth"? From the BBC: "Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
5) At 7:32, Monckton says "we have a scientific phrase for this, we scientists, ...". His bio: education in journalism and classics. Work as a writer, journalist, entrepreneur, inventing/selling a cool game, and non-elected political posts (notably a policy adviser to Thatcher). "We scientists"?
6) His 9 year graph: a) I don't trust him b) Which IPCC report? c) Lawyer cherry-picking data - change his time scale slightly, and you'll either lose statistical significance or the effect
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
6d) This is about CLIMATE, so 9 years is the wrong scale. Jim Hansen (an actual "we scientists") compared his famous 1988 predictions before Congress against the measured temp record over the next SEVENTEEN years - and achieved remarkable accuracy. Hansen, being a REAL scientist, warned that the accuracy of the predictions was misleading for various reasons, and that the time frame too short to draw confident conclusions.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
6e) The temporary pause in temp growth is accounted for in the literature (Smith and Keenlyside) by a recent greater understanding of ocean currents permitting predictions on a shorter decade-level scale. (Years ago, Smith predicted recording breaking temps for half the years 2009-2014. 2010 will be #1 by the time it's done. Lucky guess?)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
7) Trust this "we scientists" journalist about climate science? a) Engineering Prof John Abraham of the U of St Thomas, gave a detailed point-by-point, virtually slide-by-slide refutation of a Monckton talk there. b) This month, 21 ACTUAL climatologists filed with Congress a detailed refutation (best called "a shredding") about Monckton's House testimony earlier this year (google the Guardian's "'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science").
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Good entertainment without any credibility.
remcovanek2 1 year ago
Si vd. subtitulara estos videos llegarian a mas gente, podria ser muy interesante
chema100100 1 year ago
i don tknow why he has been sayong there has been warming when in the last ten yesrs it has bneen getting cooler. ClimATE Gate, I guess he loves to debate.
KombiPode 1 year ago
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed your idea that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change. That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
No Mate! We should obviously ask graphics designers like Peter Sinclair a.k.a. Greenman3610. His scientific background, allows him to absorb the vast knowledge of Al Gore (he spent time with him, you know...)
I wonder if Al gore actually did convince him that we find millions of centigrades if we dig down 20 kilometers.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@indulis1 "being a part of a generation that used up as much of the earth's resources as possible,..."
You are right that the fossil fuel supply is finite. It should be common knowledge what the Hubbert curve is and what are the implications.
Al I am saying is 1) the climate have been changing since the formation of our planet.. 2) the Keeling curve is 52 years long and does not correlate well with the hundreds of thousand years long temperature proxies. 3) Globalists are abusing the issue.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar The issue is that at the times when the climate was a lot hotter, the sea levels were also tens of metres higher. I don't want that! Also, lots of species died out due to the inhospitable environment at those times. I don't particularly want that either. SO, just because it was warmer before does not mean we should try our best to get back there, we will probably not like it when we get there.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
We don't want flood and 120 degree summers either.
Also it is not about to happen.
If Al Gore had beleived his crap he would not have bought property on land that would be flooded according to you.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar So what one ex-politician does with his real estate portfolio somehow eliminates more than 20 years of scientific research and data that proves climate change is happening, and it is linked to mankind's CO2 emissions? That is the sort of un-logic and un-thinking that deniers are renowned for. Don't address the reality, slippery eel the discussion onto something of minor relevance.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 What Gore does, will not change the cause-effect relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and the normal changes in climate. When Gore says one thing and does another, it makes him not credible. The un-logic is when you imagine correlation between the Keeling curve and long term changes in global temperatures.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar It is not MY imagining. I am not qualified to comment on correlation or not. Neither are you. Any more than we are qualified to do liver surgery or cite opinions on other specialised professions where knowledge and experience count. So, when 98%+ of all experts in a field agree on something, that is really it. The opinions, ramblings, and other noises from non-experts is just idle chatter keeping us from actually starting to do as much as we can to avoid problems in the future.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 "98%+ of all experts in a field agree "
Well, is those experts are all getting grants to study "global warming caused by CO2", it is not in their interest to find that there is no global warming.
On the other hand if we include all scientists, not just the ones that make their living studying "global warming caused by CO2", the is not 98% of them that say that it is proven that CO2 drives global climate. Like the numerous geologist in the international geological conference.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar Where is your source that experts are "all getting grants to study global warming caused by CO2" (implying that they must agree to get $). Deniers also say scientists can't make up their minds because they predicted a new ice age in the 1970s. Which is it, they can't make up their minds, or they are all conspiring? Or maybe you're mistaking this for how deniers were paid to prove warming wasn't done by CO2. $16M. Nice work if you can get it. UCS report "Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air".
indulis1 1 year ago
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed the bit that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change? That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
indulis1 1 year ago
@judomagyar Oh sorry, I missed the bit that we should ask biochemists about their opinion on climate change? That makes sense, maybe the climate scientists could go into a pharmaceutical company and tinker around with some chemicals, and likewise offer their opinions on an unrelated field where they are not qualified. Another great idea from you- how do you keep coming up with these? PS How many deniers does it take to make a logical statement? No-one knows, because it hasn't happened yet!
indulis1 1 year ago
@judomagyar PS As far as I know, Al Gore has to live somewhere. And I don't think he is prohibited from selling before a disaster is he? Is there a list of "approved places" for him to live?
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 So Al would sell his new property in bad faith to someone when he knows that it will be flooded soon? Really?
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar He could sell it to any climate denier, with a completely clear conscience.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
I am eagerly awaiting Dr. Abrahams thorough and impartial, in depth analysis of Al Gore's "An inconvenient truth".
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar This is a classic debating diversionary tactic. When faced with the facts, divert ot something else. Excellent, you are learning well from Monckton, the "master-debater" of all time!
indulis1 1 year ago
Look for John Abraham Reply Monckton here on youtube, and then you can see with what expertise Monckton distorts and misrepresents the "peer reviewed science" that he offers as proof. A master-debater par excellence.
indulis1 1 year ago
Must-see videos ...
.
Both parts of Peter Sinclair's excellent analysis of the Monckton and his disinformation road show:
.
DEBUNKING . LORD . MONCKTON -- PART 1
watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
.
DEBUNKING . LORD . MONCKTON -- PART 2
watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc
substanti8 1 year ago 6
@substanti8 ROFL are you serious? greenman is an idiot, a book burner, his videos alone, provoke "making fun" "teasing" are proof he is as bad as the Nazis, he refutes no data, he refutes no theory, ask yourself why? maybe we should stop his pay slip from being processed and once his means of money ceases so will the lies he spins, sounds familiar? Saudi Arabia? yeah?
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver
.
"as bad as the Nazis"
.
... thereby triggering Godwin's law (reductio ad Hitlerum) and demonstrating that saintmacgyver is a fool -- to be ignored.
substanti8 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver Sure reasonable thinking, quoting sources, let alone the absence of emotional rants surely point to delutedness.
What are you simply retarded or a jester?
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 emotional rants, have you watched greenmans posts on debunking monckton?, save your jester red book party line bullshit for the courts. greenman posts nothing related to AGW, you "believers" need to wake up
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 emotional rants? have you watched any of greenmans opinions?, you point the finger at me about rants? just watch his post on monckton, he starts by attacking moncktons appearance...greenman is a shill and a paid for one to be exact,, he still believes in the hockey stick graph for gods sake.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintmacgyver Dude, "..and demonstrating that saintmacgyver is a fool -- to be ignored"
You´ve not done anything to change this...
Regurgitating nonesense won´t help.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver Most climate scientists have confirmed the "hockey stick". It has well and truly been subject to analysis. Over and over again.
indulis1 1 year ago
@substanti8 HAHAHAHAHA! Those videos from Sinclair rely on ad hominem rubbish. I mean - the first 2:30 of the first one is just personal attacks - no content just clips from movies and silly music - WHOAH i guess we'd better raise the price of energy 4 fold for someone's idiotic YT video and raise food as well so the poor can STARVE. The key issue is whether or not adding CO2 to the atmos makes much difference and it makes stuff-all difference. What a sucker you are.
logofreetv 1 year ago
@substanti8
Have Global temperature been declining the last 9 years. If it is true. that is Great News. I have to find the data NOW!
HolyCatholicApostoli 1 year ago
@substanti8 DDT deaths are absolutely true, and the science used to ban it, in America, was all falsified. Look it up in the Congressional records. Read, think, learn, know the truth
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
All we have to do is wait for another 5-10 years.
There is no need to enter into international agreements that will give control of a huge amount of money to UN Bureaucrat's. Of course, when sun cycle 24 comes and we will have some satellites knocker out, the AGW religious crowd will blame CO2 in the air. They will be as irrational as ever. They will demand to establish an international CO2 police, etc...
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar Yup, and when Santa comes down the chimney and places the little red wagon under my tree, we will all know that Santa is real ! In the Seventies the Liberal's back then told us about the Ozone layer being destroyed and CFC's were the cause. They screamed an Ice Age was coming, and that it would take 150 years for the Ozone to heal. They lied. 1970's were the hottest decade on record, and the Ozone is already twice as thick in the thin spots. Read, think, and learn the truth.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@ 0PsycoDad0
watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8
judomagyar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0PsycoDad0
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French: Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire), known as CERN
The CLOUD experiments are running at a 50 year old 28 GeV Proton Synchrotron. NOT in the Large Hadron Collider.
Do I have to explain everything? Why don't you Google some of this stuff if you don't know before you reply.
watch?v=HGquwwoQfVY&playnext_from=TL&videos=hA_xTUee7kI
judomagyar 1 year ago
I bet your beloved Lord holds his belly for so many dimwits fall for his bogus "assertions". He´s very cunning on 1on1 discussions and extremely good at finding ones weaknesses.
Yet even the vid you mentioned comes to the conclusion that man made global warming is a fact EVEN considering the cosmic ray cloud formation (6:55-end?)
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago 6
@0PsycoDad0
Monckton is working the audience just like Al Gore does.
The difference is that, Monckton is appealing to common sense, Gore appeals to emotions And Monckton, unlike Gore, knows that the temperature inside our planet is NOT millions of degrees..How can anyone, who passed 8th grate science, take Al Gore's scientific opinion seriously?
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar "Monckton is appealing to common sense" LOL
" inside our planet is NOT millions " I cannot remeber the scene in Gore´s film so will you "reveal the fraud"? (Time in the film?)
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@judomagyar LOL!
watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o&playnext_from=TL&videos=pgYbWxdoYqo
i couldn´t possibly have done it any better.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0
So far this is greenman's best video!
Monckton is the long lost evil twin brother of Al "the center of the Earth is millions of degrees" Gore.
They both mercilessly and cynically work the audience.
The only difference is their ultimate message.
As Lindzen said, "on the long term, we will win and they (AGW Cultists) will loose; for the simple reason, that we are right and they are wrong"
It will take a few more years, when AGW will become undefensible.
judomagyar 1 year ago
Well, nobody claims Al Gore to be 100% but in comparrison to Lord Moron he hit the bullseye...
It´s just nuttery 2 or 3 from thousands and don´t dare to come up with off "explantations" like "the industry payed them all".
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@judomagyar Monckton just distorts and misrepresents his "facts" by misquoting the science he presents as his "evidence". See John Abrahams Reply Monckton either on youtube or via web search (original flash presentation is best). Time and again, Monckton says somthing is supported by the science on his presentation charts, but it turns out to be the opposite (and there are emails from the authors Monckton misquotes as proof as well as links to the original papers).
indulis1 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time, (my best GWB-USH impersonation) ,have you heard this saying before? when you AGW people come up with hard facts and data that is openly available for everyone to see and review, and not projections and models, but real data that proves beyond doubt that AGW will be the end of us all, then and only then ring your bells. otherwise STFU and let science take its course.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver Err, hjave you read any of the comments here?
No? How about doing before stating retarded things like:" proves beyond doubt that AGW ", "otherwise STFU and let science take its course"
It´s funny how idiots like you take sciences side but FAIL to live up to it.
There is no point you can make where other "skeptics" failed.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver By your logic, you will only accept as proof evidence once it has happened. Great bit of thinking there, really impressive!
indulis1 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 MushroomDad, Global warming was here before caveman, will be here long after you. By the way so hasn't Global cooling. Also these are the same parasites that you follow that claimed an Ice Age in the 1970's, look it up. Read, think, learn the truth
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Yeah whatever crap you´re ruminating...
GET AN EDUCATION!
This lack of reasoning is simply painful to read...
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 Mushroom, that's the difference I have an education. I don't listen to people spout without fact checking. You should try it, its fun!
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtaxplayer "I have an education"
LOL! Good joke.
"I don't listen to people spout without fact checking."
ROFL! That one was even better.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 This is the second most grotesque videos i've ever come across on U tube. Anyway, well said. Politicians are expert manipulaters of the facts.
mcwolfus 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 as he said ask him to prove his theories if you cant outprove him then SHUTUP
MrRiccarton 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 by ones weaknesses do you mean the flaws in their work?
slimmpiknz 9 months ago
" Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. "
Winston Churchill
awish4truth 1 year ago
"A fanatic is someone who cant change his mind and won´t change the subject."
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it´s pants on"
"it a fine thing to be honest, but it´s also important to be right."
Again Winston
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
" There is no such thing as a good tax. "
Winston Churchill
awish4truth 1 year ago
" The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. "
Winston Churchill
awish4truth 1 year ago
haha he wears his tie tucked in his pants. what a loser.
MrElectricdude 1 year ago
...presentation after presentation by the bed wetters... Ha!!!! LOL - this guy is an absolute scream!!! And he delivers the lines totally deadpan!! I love it!!!
DeclarinTruth 2 years ago
Love this guy. I applaud his gutsy expose' of the manipulative power grab that's going on. He's got the goods and what a sense of humor!!
DeclarinTruth 2 years ago
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earths Climate (January 12, 7:34 AM Examiner Dianna Cotter)
Dr. Zagoni explains: Since the Earths atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O,was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
judomagyar 2 years ago
LOL!
Return to Judo, dude. This is a gross misconception of the topic.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0
]Miskolczi and Lindzen both showed that a runaway greenhouse is impossible on Earth. Also, it it were possible it would have happened by now.
Henrik Svensmark showed that the amount of forcing is modulated by clouds and cloud formation is seeded by galactic radiation.
If you want proof we will have it in the next few years from the CLOUD experiments at CERN.
The orthodoxy is wrong, we are seeing the dawn of new paradigm IN CLIMATE SCIENCE
judomagyar 1 year ago
Comment removed
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
Comment removed
judomagyar 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0
Not in the Large Hadron collider!
The CLOUD experiments are being run on a 50 year old proton synchrotron.
judomagyar 1 year ago
Interestingly enough none of them jumps to your eroneous conclusions...
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0
You are correct! Real scientists do not jump to conclusions!
They run experiments.
Many in the AGW crowd said: " we can not think of anything else, there fore it must be human produced CO2. And they don't even include one line of code about clouds in their climate models.
Also we can wait another 5-10 years and it will be obvious to even Al Gore that we are started to cool.
judomagyar 1 year ago
@judomagyar You are right, lets continue to run a great big experiment on the whole planet, keep releasing lots of CO2, and see what happens in "5 to 10 years". Your kids will thank you for it when you are wrong (and you must concede that you might be). Even if you aren't wrong, will they thank you for being a part of a generation that used up as much of the earth's resources as possible, as quickly as possible?
indulis1 1 year ago
Anyother detail he "forgot" to mention: Lindzen as the most reknown skeptik has close ties to Chevron, Exxon and all the othwer Big Oil Corps.
Well how reliable is that?
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
@0PsycoDad0 Singer is another "scientist" who has graduated from a "smoking causes cancer" denier to "climate change denier". Business is booming!
indulis1 1 year ago
It´s also funny how the skeptiks´re useing them as figureheads of "truth" whereas the scientific comunity looks with wary suspicion on them. Of course all scientist collude to hide the truth as soon as the don´t support your paranoid agenda....
*deskpalimg hard*
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
Comment removed
judomagyar 1 year ago
Something important is happening
Take a look at William Tarkovsky's youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation.
Share with like-minded concerned and green!
ClimateAware 2 years ago
Monckton is honest, erudite, and correct is his summation of global warming hysteria.
soupdragon42 2 years ago 2
I had an honor to interview this great man 3 times in Copenhagen, while the dangerous circus there was going on (see youtube).
He was the only public figure who had brains and stamina enough to expose the scheme and He, most probably, saved the day for all of us.
JacekSzkudlarekMD 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JacekSzkudlarekMD
Here's a GREAT piece on Lord Monckton.
Google Monckton Scotsman and click on the first item.
I don't know why the mainstream media doesn't pay more attention to this man.
lonahouse 2 years ago
Question:
Does anyone knows what happened to Prof Bob Carter, James Cook Univ, Queensland who presented a number of brilliant talks dismissing global warming as a hoax? I thought that Prof Carter would have featured at least a few times with Lord Monckton's visit to Australia, but I did not see him in any of the videos posted on YouTube.
oomblikkies 2 years ago
Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making
the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.
scrollandkey 2 years ago
@scrollandkey
Your misinterpretation of the BBC interview points to a severe cognitive incapacity as the original wasn´t in any way "pro-skeptic"!
Your idiotic attempt to place it this way is either due to cluelessness on a massive scale or deliberate misinformtion on behalf of Lord Moron!
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of man-made climate change. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology & propaganda.
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge
authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - T.H. Huxley
scrollandkey 2 years ago
@scrollandkey
You´ve twisted the original meaning of the interview.
Look up definition of lie you clueless dimwit.
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer
scrollandkey 2 years ago
@scrollandkey
Quoting intelligent ppl don´t undo your lie.....
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
I don't understand what you think he's lied about. Jones did say all the things that scrollandkey alleged he did. The fact that he didn't include Jones' overall sentiment doesn't diminish those facts, though. To the contrary: Jones' staunch adherence to climate change alarmism despite his admission of all these points (he also said that we've seen global cooling through most of the 21st century) demonstrates the deep religiosity of AGW eschatology and how much it should not be trusted.
hayesism 2 years ago
If you´d be able to read AND understand texts then after having read the BBC interview it should become somewhat clear that "skeptiks"´re dimwited cave dwellers who twist and turn facts in their favor regardless of content and logic.
"Jones' overall sentiment doesn't diminish those facts," LOL! You´ve shown before to be completely empty minded and incapable of proper thinking so my first guess is GET AN EDUCATION!
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
Who are you to tell people to get an education? Honestly, you would lose a 3rd grade debate. I remember way back in primary school when we first started debating my teacher explained that there's no use in just calling someone stupid or wrong, you have to rebut their argument and reveal the flaw.
This idea hearkens way back to Aristotle. Basically, you first explain the fallacy. THEN you can call your opponent stupid. Saying that they're stupid therefore wrong only makes you look worse.
hayesism 2 years ago
Or to put it another way, how can you call someone uneducated when basic tenets of English spelling have gone right through you? Just what is a "skeptik"? YouTube even has an automatic spell checker, for Christ's sake -- just how "dimwited" are you?
hayesism 2 years ago
Kid ppl can actually read my comments and understand what they mean...
When you´ve learned a least one foreign language you may eventually earn credentials for correcting other ppls grammar. Until then kid.
BTW "when my spelling is flawed then my thinking is flawed" is a poor, helpless attempt.
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
"when my spelling is flawed..." Just making up quotations now?
I wasn't calling you up on your spelling to impugn any argument you made about global warming (come to think of it, have you actually made any so far, or have you just called anyone who disagrees stupid?) I only point out your spelling when you decide to call me uneducated and reveal your own lack of education in one fell swoop.
"...correcting other ppls grammar." I haven't even mentioned your grammar.
Also, I'm not a kid.
hayesism 2 years ago
LOL!
No idiot, i put it simple so you dimwit get it.
"I only point out your spelling when.." So you HAVE pointed it out invalidating your later commnets content. What are you a PR agent?
This idioticy is impossible to live with...
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
Depends on browser wanna be smart-ass...
And AGAIN: no i don´t have to come up with reasons why "your theory" is FU$§%NG NUTS!
YOU HAVE TO point out why it´s BETTER to use "your" theory but you cannopt because it´s idiocy, void of anything reasonable!
You dipshit stupid wiener want to lecture me? Without the very basics?
Kid, GET AN EDUCATION!!!!
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"This idioticy is impossible to live with..."
WHOA, really? I'd better keep it coming if that's how you feel! El oh el!
"your theory"
Seriously what's with all the made up quotations? You keep calling me a kid, accusing me of having no education, and making up things I say, all just to avoid actually addressing what I say.
hayesism 2 years ago
"YOU HAVE TO point out..."
Whatever happened to the null hypothesis? Very well, I'll indulge you since it's only taught in any first year science class so you wouldn't know any better.
If you want a reason why it's "BETTER to use" the skeptical view, rather than why it's simply correct (and I don't blame you for wanting to change the terms of the debate), I'll cite for starters that the raising of food prices that AGW mitigation causes will increase starvation rates and third world stagnation.
hayesism 2 years ago
Some dimwit hadn´t even an idea of the very definition of temperature!
His "skeptics" claims were exactly yours so there´s nothing to it.
Praising Lord Moron wouldn´t do anything and at least he knows he´s lieing and i bet makes fun of it, playing around with some dimwited lower class idiots.
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
"AGW eschatology" Just proves you dimwit have no fu§$ing idea about what you´re babbling.
Even the most retarded idiots outside a madhouse we have over here understand that.
XD!
Jones is the expert you´re just some tinfoilhat looney.
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
"Jones is the expert" Okay, I'll cite Jones then. When asked if there has been global cooling since January 2002, Jones acknowledged that there has been a negative trend of -0.12C per decade.
hayesism 2 years ago
Your intention to twist it the skeptics way is hillarious.
When you once understand your cherrypicked argument , you´ll notice that despite this being true the positive temperature trend isn´t broken. After a learning statistics you´ll understand why a trend isn´t linear when it´s depicting a non-linear system.
Kid get an education and i seriously mean no homeschooling..
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
If you have a problem with linearity, take it up with Jones. He's the one who said there's a trend -- although give him a break, I think you're taking him out of context to assume that he means a linear trend. However almost all allegations of global warming have tried to explain it in a linear context. How convenient that you no longer find this satisfactory now that it no longer fits your argument.
hayesism 2 years ago
You´re trying every creationist´ pseudo argument?! If s.o. "takes" Jones "out of context" then it´s you...
Again: even during an up-ternd there´re downward extremes.
"...it no longer fits ..." : FAIL
It´s you who constructs some bizarre semi explanation.
You´re slippery as an eel, eh?
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
But there isn't an upward trend. Jones even said that it's downhill. How is it being slippery to point this out?
Which creationist arguments am I using? I'm unfamiliar with them, being an atheist and all.
And slippery eels try to get away from people trying to catch em. I aint going anywhere though, kid.
hayesism 2 years ago
any comment on media watch owning ur shill ass?
genghis6l99 2 years ago
Pop-eyed crackpot down under! How thrilling!
atobiajfe 2 years ago
Thank you for uploading!
AIexKidd 2 years ago
I find no flaws in Monckton's logic. Those who find flaw should re-examine their reasoning.
Nutter1138 2 years ago
@Nutter1138 That is because you haven't read a single serious book on global warming...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Comment removed
Nutter1138 2 years ago
@StunnedByStupidity
When in fact I have been studying the topic with a trained scientific mind for many years....
Presumably we both want the planet and people to prosper - but where you see right wing scum I see social engineering from the socialist left. Like most your intentions are for the best, but like most you have allowed yourself to buy into the dogma - ask yourself why you regurgitate the same propaganda as your masters?
Nutter1138 2 years ago
Look nutter EVERYTHING that goes on in a right wing mind. SOCIAL ENGINEERING - (even if that was the goal and - unfortunately it aint) completely trashes free market capialism on almost all levels FOR ALL PEOPLE - REALITY YET AGIN is against you!
And just for the record can you tell us what has caused the warming over the last 30 years? Oh there's a suprize eh? I bet it's the faeries...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
that should have been '... in a right wing mind has NOTHING to do with reality' - I ran out of space deleted and rearranged and it then made no sense...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Yes socialist social engineering trashes free market capitalism - thats the point of socialism in part..
As Monckton points out (and Richard Lindzen of MIT, google him if you don't know) - it is illogical to conclude that CO2 is responsible for the warming because CO2 should in theory cause some ill defined warming and there has been some warming. The globe hasn't warmed for the last 15 years, its cooled over the last 10 years. How do you explain that verifiable fact?
Nutter1138 2 years ago
Are you really a nutter as you name implies? look take the unfair societies (e.g. The US, UK, Portugal, New Zealand) and compare them to the fairer societies (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan). They are on average happier, healthier, less fat, live longer, there is less crime, fewer are in prison, mentally more healthy, more trusting of neighbors, are less racists, sexist, richer - sound just awful eh?
'the spirit level equal' on you tube - or get the book 'The Spirit Level'
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
And you don't want a pay rise for another 30 years I take it?
'paul krugman income' on you tube
NO RISE FOR THE BOTTOM and a TINY rise for the middle FOR THIRTY YEARS!
Oh and I have heard of Lindzen alright. And can I just get this right, if I show he is full of shit you will abandon your delusions (BTW - you have been at this for years and that is all you have?)?
'lindzen debunked again progress' on google.
And you agree it is the faeries causing the warming I take it?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Lindzen is a respect climate scientist - I don't know who you are but you come across and young, uneducated and quite possibly disturbed....
Nutter1138 2 years ago
Oh the irony. YOU are not in touch with reality and I am the disturbed one... YOU ARE INSANE...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Comment removed
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
faeries? Is that joke spelling for fairies? I'll tell you what caused the warming, the same thing that is likely causing the cooling. And the climate fluctuations for the last 4.5 billion years.
CO2 is just one small part to the equation - the only reason its being focussed on is because its tied to energy production and wealth via industry. What better way flex global control over economy than focus on CO2 ?almost exclusively?
Nutter1138 2 years ago
Boy you people are just SO stupid if the issue wasn't so important then I would tell you what you could do with your stupidity. IT AINT THE EFFIN SUN MPORON. You go get me a graph that shows the sun has increased since the late 50's - you wont find one BECAUSE THE SUN HAS BEEN LEVEL OR COOLING - SHEEZ...
And it is shown your Lindzen was bollocks and like the typical right winger heave the gaol posts further down the field and appeal to a tinfoil hat explanation - YOU ARE INSANE!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
I didn't say it was the sun - but clearly that is part of the complex climate equation - and if you deny that then you are the insane one.
I have seen no evidence that Lindzen's logic is flawed - he has a measured and scientific mind rather than the emotional state of panic non scientists and UN politicians are exhibiting.
Explain to me the decline is global temperatures over the past 10 years given that CO2 levels continue to rise - thats right - you cannot.
Nutter1138 2 years ago
Ah right years of study, it aint the Sun, it aint CO2 and it aint the faeries? Yet shockingly you don;t know what it is?
Look those papers in that article are peer reviewed and trash his stupid nonsense - YOU DIDN'T READ IT - there's a suprise. Not only that but he is a NOTORIOUS denier and has been trashed by A FELLOW DENIER! Yet still fruit loops bloke wont face reality.
'NASA climate graph' GOOGLE IT.
Now you stupid moron, see that red line, did it stop rising in 2000? Sheez...
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Oh and I am emotional ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT OR PSYCHOPATH wouldn't if the world was FUCKING DYING!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
The world is not dying you plonker :) At least not due to CO2.
The real danger to the earth is in the form of actual bio-toxins and heavy metals - clean food and drinking water are likely to be the real problems in the future, not some minor fluctuation up or down in temperature as has always historically been the case.
Nutter1138 2 years ago
FUCKING HELL. Go here and SLOWLY scroll down and if you had a fucking ounce of compassion you fucking hear will break:
'Mass Extinction Underway | Biodiversity Crisis | Global Species Loss' on you tube
You have been at this year and didn't know we are in the 6 th great extinction of multicelular life?
And warm the planet by 4oC and the planet is ruined - you fuck wit.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
Right, like its been 4 deg warmer during the mid evil warm period when crops and the people flourished? Hmm, the planet is still here after that hike in global temperatures - and where where the SUVs then hmmm?
Rather than just repeating the same nonsense you hear, try and get a clue instead?
Nutter1138 2 years ago
That
'Mass Extinction Underway | Biodiversity Crisis | Global Species Loss' is on google not you tube - TYPO.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
You realise that many mainstream AGW proponents are now predicting the earth is going into a cooling phase - right? Research it.
Fact is they are just covering there behinds with new models to fit the observables - all the while stating that the globe is going to warm in the long run. Whatever.
Nutter1138 2 years ago 2
The planet is NOT NOT NOT NOT going to cool your fucking dip shit. Like all the other bollox the guy who wrote the paper denies the sping put on it by the tin foil hat brigade.
And you might like to give fucking references for your stupidity eh?
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
I bet a billion is Alex bleedin Jones.
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago
You might want to check it out and educate yourself then with the latest research. After the record low temperatures in the northern hemisphere this winter many scientists are indicating a cooling trend may be upon us. Remember the global cooling scare of the 70s?
Its not my job to research for you, but while we are at it, where are your references?
Nutter1138 2 years ago 2
You are STUNNINGLY stupid:
'NASA makes it official: 2000s were the hottest decade on record, 2009 tied for second warmest year' google it
SO NASA says second warmest year on record and we are heading towards an ice age? And I am the one to educate myself? How fucking old are you kid?
Oh and the old its not my job to prove you right. So if I say there are faeries at the bottom of my garden it is for you to prove me wrong or there are? And can you? So you now think I have faeries eh? MORON!
StunnedByStupidity 2 years ago