How To Boil A Frog presents George Monbiot

[david222444]

We are not capable of changing the climate , the Sun does that. The climate changes us not the other way round. What if the Planet cools abruptly ? Where will his concience be then ? What will he tell his grandchildren?

[howtoboilafrog]

@david222444 If something happens that 98+% of the world's peer-reviewed climatologists agree is completely impossible - like the Laws of Thermodynamics being repealed so that skyrocketing CO2 levels somehow don't warm the planet - that George will be greatly relieved, and spend his time cavorting with his grandchildren in fields of fairies and Easter Bunnies!

[david222444]

@howtoboilafrog The pals reviewed papers mean nothing if the data is false. Since when did the laws of thermodynamics agree with greenhouse theory ? The laws of thermodynamics state the opposite. Carbon dioxide is a harmless natural gas essential to the production if oxygen. The Sun is the major driver in climate change and it is now entering a Grand Minimum . The Pacific Ocean is cooling. Nature will do what she likes with the climate. All you need is the humility to accept that fact.

[minilemur]

What gets me sheeptea is that eco-sheep like you pretend you and monbiot have scientific backing for your absurd alarmism, when in fact the science that you pretend to quote actually says more or less the opposite of what you claim.

Thus you rely on the IPCC without noticing that the IPCC claims no particularly large rise in sea levels will happen.

It also says there will be more precipitation in some areas and more drought in others. So what? When has this not been the case on this planet.

[TroyaE117]

"End capitalism and save the planet"?

Motives are irrelevant?

Is he factual? It is all emotional, parroted drivel from start to boring finish.

[TroyaE117]

Monbiot is a self-confessed anti-capitalist campaigner.

Beware this pseudo-climatologist.

Be not deceived.

[sheeptea]

His motives are irrelevant, what matters is the factual accuracy of his position on global warming. But thanks for bringing up a red herring, again.

[minilemur]

sheeptea - you've got a nerve - it's always you eco-alarmists who are trying to smear the motives of skeptics. So what's your problem with understanding that Monbiot is an ideologue who corrupts science to his crazy ends.

[sheeptea]

I'm not trying to smear the motives of skeptics. Monbiot's book shows quite clearly how vested interests are trying to create uncertainty over global warming. People like you are just probbaly victims of such practices.

Where has Monbiot corrupted science? Point it out to me.

And being an ideologue? Great point. Oh no! he is a proponet of a particular ideology. How dreadful!

[minilemur]

Monbiot conveniently (for him) hides the fact that vested interests are trying to create deluded and false certainty over global warming. Why? Because a whole army of eco-fascists such as Monbiot himself are making very lucrative careers out of the alrmism at the expense of the poor of the world (whom they don't care about) who are the real victims of the stealth carbon taxation and cap and trade schemes.

What's dreadful is that Monbiot is an ideologue who lies about science.

[sheeptea]

OK, what you do is point out to me where monbiot has lied about science, and then your accusation won't be baseless. This is called a citation, and it's what you need to be taken seriously when talking about scientific findings.

[minilemur]

sheeptea - you really are sheepish - clearly you don't understand the first thing about citation.

You can hear Monbiot lying about science several times in this little clip alone.

Absurdly he claims that hundreds of millions will die as a result of "runaway climate change". Total bollocks. No reputable scientists would agree with him.

Note too, the dishonest way he concedes no provable link with hurrican Katrina, and then proceeds to make the link anyway!!!!!!

What childish crap.

[sheeptea]

Hurricanes are powered by the heat of the oceans (this is why they happen just after the summer when the water's warmest). Global warming will exacerbate hurricanes. So there's the hurrican link. The link with Katrina can only be tentative however, and George gets that across here.

Runaway climate change will kills billions. Droughts floods, loss of land to the sea, increase range of malarial breeding grounds. Check out the IPCC reports. I assume a scholar like yourself will know who they are

[minilemur]

Many scientific studies have shown that there is no evidence of increasing hurricane intensity or frequency with increasing global warming. End of case. So THERE IS NO LINK and Monbiot is a dangerous liar.

Runaway climate change is not claimed by the IPCC - I know exactly who they are - the interGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change - i.e. not a scientific body, but a body packed with bureaucrats and politicians.

Studies have shown no link between global warming and increasing malaria.

[nitpicker]

I have changed my opinion 180 degrees. At first I gave this clip one star, now I find it so hilarious I give it five stars. Cheers!

[Merany1]

Can George Monbiot not see how stupid, naive and far-fetched his statements are.

AGW is a similar situation as WWII and the rise of the , what is he talking about?????????????

He is a perfect example of a generation that has been brought up in a fantasy world of TV and movies.

Reality and down-to-earthness does not seem to be with us much anymore.

His statements border on the down right superstitious.

[masmit]

"We must force our governments to force us..."

This, from a man drawing an equivalence to the struggle against the nazis.

[stuartjbray]

George Monbiot is my new personal hero. He has pushed Richard Dawkins into second place.

[attorp]

There is absolutely nothing illogical about Monbiot's comments. He uses the Katrina example to show how humans respond to disasters after they have happened rather than take steps to prevent the disaster in the first place. And yes, the vast majority of the world scientific community agrees that global warming is happening and that humans are responsible.

[minilemur]

attorp - correction - Monbiot is using Katrina as an example of what could be caused by global warming. In reality hurricanes like Katrina are a fact of life and no amount of reductions in carbon emissions will make any difference to them.

[attorp]

minilemur - correction-listen to the clip. Monbiot states re Katrina "whether or not that was influenced by climate change we just don't know." The problem with climate change is we have to take strong action before the really dramatic stuff happens. (ie., listen to the science) Unfortunately, humans are not that smart as they tend to react only after they are personally affected, and then it is too late. Climate change calls for prevention...CO2 stays in the atmosphere for over a century.

[minilemur]

attorp - I have listened to the clip. The point is that Monbiot has carefully cjosen a form of words which is deliberately ambiguous. Thus he can pretend to remain open-minded whilst actually leaping to closed-minded conclusions.

Here's a better way of understanding it. There is no reason whatsoever - no evidence - nor argument - to support any assertion that Katrina was in any way influenced by human-caused global warming.

We don't have to take strong action before dramatic stuff happens.

[attorp]

Correction - Monbiot states re Katrina "whether or not that was influenced by climate change we simply do not know." He is pointing out that humans have a history of reacting only when they are personally affected. Climate change calls for prevention (ie, listen to the science)because once the really dramatic stuff happens there will be nothing man can do to influence events. In other words, intelligence is required by an animal who is known for his stupidity.

[minilemur]

attorp - correction - humans have a history of preventing all sorts of things - e.g. global starvation, SARS epidemic, increasingly we are preventing wars. More and more we react when we aren't personally affected, hence the vast amounts of charitable giving, which have grown and grown.

Climate change doesn't call for prevention, because we don't know what it's changing from or to, we don't know what causes it (probably the sun) and to mess around with the economy for little effect is stupid.

[Teratornis]

It's strange how so many people in the climate change camp portray fossil fuel consumption as a moral issue, as if the option exists to burn all the fossil fuel we please. It's as if they have never heard of peak oil. World oil production has already peaked, in 2006, and if Matthew Simmons and others are correct, it's about to go into steep and irreversible decline. The impact will be as enormous, and is nearly upon us.

[minilemur]

What pretentious rubbish Monbiot spouts. He concedes that we just don't know if Katrina has anything to do with global warming at all and then illogically claims it gives us a taste of the future. Is he incapable of understanding the basic rules of logic?

There is no evidence of runaway climate change. The changes we have seen are mild and continue to be so.

What a stupid non sequitur - that tiny changes could save hundreds of millions of lives.

[jackgharris]

minilemur,

There's nothing illogical about what he says. Katrina may not have been caused by global warming, but it was an example of a humanitarian catastrophe caused by a natural disaster in the western world. It was therefore a striking and visible reminder of the possible disastrous effects of climate change. What's so difficult about that?

You may think climate change isn't a problem. But 99% of scientists who have studied it disagree.

[minilemur]

jackgharris - 2 corrections:

1. It is not true that 99% of scientists who have studied it think that climate change is a problem. Where would you have got such a patently idiotic "statistic" from?

2. The extra damage caused by Katrina was not an example of "climate change" - it was an example of failing to maintain the levees something that the Clinton/Gore administration were responsible for just as much as the Bush administration. Which bit of that do you not understand?

[napornik]

hey mini...

Let me guide you slowly through this whole show.

The video is about change. Small changes.

Notice the name of the dude posting it.

"how to boil a frog". get it?

[minilemur]

napornik, thankyou for agreeing to go through this slowly.

The video is about imaginary changes adding up to an imaginary problem.

Of course I get the analogy about the frog - the point is that it is a completely irrelevant analogy. Climate changes are nothing like boiling a pot of water.

We have seen barely 0.6 degrees increase over the last century - most of it preceding increases in human CO2 emissions.

Compare that with the 60 - 70 degrees involved in boiling a frog. 100 times as much.

[sheeptea]

Yeah, the metaphor doesn't work because boiling a frog requires a greater heat change than the heat change of the planet... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at stupidity of that magnitude.

You say it's an imaginary problem, and then say we have seen a .6 degree increase. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

[minilemur]

sheeptea - I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity - or is it dishonesty?

0.6 degrees is much much much much much much much much less of a heat change than what is involved in boiling anything, you dumb retard!

if you werenot so stupid you would understand that a tiny average change like this is perfectly normal on this planet, and doesn't mean anything special. Duh!

[sheeptea]

Instead of laiughing or crying you should probably go get a grown-up to explain my point and then hit you for not getting it.

By the way, you're wrong. "The rate and magnitude of global or hemispheric surface 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of the millennium, with the 1990s and 1998 likely to have been the warmest decade and year"

But hey, that's just according to the largest ever body of climatologists. Your gut feeling is just as credible.

[minilemur]

sheeptea - you reveal your ridiculous naivete in posting a quote without reference to where it comes from.

Even if the claim in the quote were true (which it doesn't even claim to be by the way - it just says "likely" - something that reasl scientists don't say without recourse to actual numerical quantities rather than vague waffle) it doesn't begin to prove that that increase is man-made. Correlation is not causation.

In fact of course that claim by Hansen-fanatics has been debunked.

[minilemur]

What pretentious rubbish Monbiot spouts. He concedes that we just don't know if Katrina has anything to do with global warming at all and then illogically claims it gives us a taste of the future. Is he incapable of understanding the basic rules of logic?

There is no evidence of runaway climate change. The changes we have seen are mild and continue to be so.

What a stupid non sequitur - that tiny changes could save hundreds of millions of lives.

[nitpicker]

Nice to see Moonbat here, I only know some of his foolish rants.

"In order to potentially save the lives of hundred's of million people ...."

(lol, what a pretentious man he is)

[pseudotruth]

The great shame about George Monbiot, is that he is not listened to by many because of his politics.

This is a great shame as he is well-worth listening to!

[theillusivemind]

Great speaker, I highly recommend his book, 'Heat'. Thanks for posting this.