David Bellamy being humiliated by George Monbiot over climate change Part 2

[alan111best]

Oh, Bellamy, what a disaster! You have no case, but then, the deniers really don't have one, do they?

[fudge1monkey]

people vote the video down because it conflicts with their ignorance.

[SAHBfan]

Bellamy comes across like a creationist, who when showed up to be speaking nonsense, just falls back on shouting 'where are the transitional fossils? Show me a transitional fossil!!"

Bellamy wouldn't look quite so silly if he just questioned the validity of the proof and adopted a sceptical standpoint, but his argument goes along the lines of: "I don't believe it because you can't prove it to me and if you try to prove it to me I won't listen'.

Not impressive.

[bigswano]

its like having an argument with a senile old fool

oh wait, it is that

[widebody123]

It is staggering that even educated people like Bellamy just refuse to read the writing on the wall. Are they just wilfully ignorant or on the payroll of 'special interests' or what? I genuinely don't understand it.

[cristop5]

While Monbiot is articulating precisely how Bellamy's data are from a fraudster, Bellamy sits there with a smirk on his face!

[TonyKaku]

@cristop5 Yes, but have you ever stopped to consider that Bellamy is a complete and utter joke?

Blam!

[tarquin161234]

David Bellamy is not fit for arguing the case, with all due respect he's too slow for debate.

[windpowerrocks]

I love this. I might just have to watch it several times until I've laughed myself into unconsciousness.

I've got a couple of films on my site parodying Bellamy.

[SwanseaFoE]

@keefyish Bellamy got his info from a conspiracy nut who thinks the British Queen heads a Drugs cartel among other daft things. His ideas are shown to be crazy. If you don't understand this then you have poor understanding of science. It is very humiliating when a scientist is shown to be this wrong live on national TV. Bellamy's info was shown to be conclusively wrong and not wchecked. This goes in the direction of scientific fraud , which humiliating and career wrecking for a scientist!

[joecushley]

@Aptitude 'House's' = bad grammar. Apostrophe is incorrect.

[joecushley]

You argue from authority. Your authorities. Point one. If Monbiot simple argued from authority you'd have a case, but in this video he points Bellend to the mountains of temperature and other evidence which support AGW, but like you, Beardamy doesn't want to look. He relies on fraudsters, hasbeens and oil company shills. Point two. Point three: The 'authorities' Monbiot quotes are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields with years of experience. Yours, in general, aren't.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe, who are you talking to? You forgot to reference anyone on this comment. Monbiot merely uses the argumeny from authority again:  1. These books state that AGW is happening 2. These books are authoritative. 3. Therefore, that AGW is happening is true.

You're understanding of the argument from authority appears to be "deeply flawed". Your continued use of ad hominem abusive continues which serves to prove my point. Fallacies are all you've got.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Jesus you're thick! At least you're spelling ad hominem right now. All you've got are these repeated accusations of logical fallacies. I've laid out very clearly why I am not guilty of these, but it's obviously beyond your grasp. The authorities he quotes are authorities for a reason. Your argument becomes a reductio ad absurdum, in which we can't accept any knowledge claim. I hope you haven't got kids because you're going to have a lot of explaining to do in 20 or so years time...

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe, more ad hominem abusive. It's surprising that an esteemed student of Philosophy, such as yourself, would find name-calling a valid form of argument. Such anger, hostility and abuse. Dr. Joe is pseudo-psychoanalyzing again. Really, deriding the parenting skills of someone you've never met and whose children you've never met. That's getting pretty low even by alarmist standards.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Pathetic. Since you won't actually debate science and the real evidence, but hide behind newly learned pseudo-philosophical window-dressing, and because you are a liar and fraud, you deserve everything you get. Give me some science for Lucifer's sake.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Lying about honourable men is pretty damn low. Why did you lie about Phil Jones again? Straightforward question, put several times, answer comes there none... I think you lie so often you've lost all moral compass. Up is down and black is white in the denialist world. It doesn't matter whether I've met you or your kids or not, I'm simply pointing out that you are betraying the forthcoming generations, so stop acting all fake angry....and talk science. Cos you haven't yet...

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe, I'm not angry i'm amused at your angry little barrage of Ad Hominem Abusive comments. Now your stalking my Youtube account. I think it might be about time to get a life, Dr. Joe.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 You *sound* angry, dear boy, however you protest. You're not worth getting angry about, but I seem to have touched a nerve.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe, pseudo-psychoanalyzing people you've never met again! Don't look now but your Freudian Projection is showing again. You have a little hissy fit, send out a barrage of Ad Hominem Abusive comments and then accuse me of being angry. Your sophomoric comments - while irrelevant - are amusing. I have one suggestion - I don't think your swearing enuogh. I'd like to see more of that, you know show off your fine education and make your mother proud. Again, get a life!

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Take a look in the mirror. So far, you've said I'm a bully, homosexual, in need of anger management classes, that I'm a stalker and that I need to get a life. That's only the last few posts. I think we can sum you up in one word here. Hypocrite. Oops, fucking hypocrite, sorry. Now answer the questions. How did I straw-man you when I stated that you thought Bellamy had the better of this argument? Have you ever quoted someone who you think knows more than you in support of an argument?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Problem being you still don't understand what an ad hom is. I insult you *because* your argument is so poor. I don't insult you to *make* your argument poor. Do you understand the difference? It's quite simple, but that's no guarantee you'll get it...

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Again, fuck you! I've got a very nice life. I'm sure bestiality in the Canadian wilds makes for a nice life too, as I said I'm not one to judge in such matters. When you fuck with my planet, that's a different case altogether. Gloves are off.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Erm, you were the first to accuse anyone of getting angry. More hypocrisy. Sorry, fucking hypocrisy.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 @wayall1 On more substantive matters, there's a very good new article at realclimate (dot) org about expertise, and making judgements on who to believe. As I've said before, you believe unqualified people, in the main, in the field of climate change, and argue using their 'authority'; I chose to trust qualified climatologists, because I think there are people who know more than me about certain subjects, climate being one of those areas. Have a read and get back to me.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Gee, I miss you! Here's hoping you've gone away to get an education.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Silly little man. I've visited your profile once. So, you fuck cattle on a farm in Canada, I won't judge. Climate change denial is a far worse crime...

[joecushley]

@wayall1 PS I like your musical taste. There, that's something we have in common. Tho' the Daddy Cool vocalist can't sing for shit, but I commend his attitude.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 I've just re-read that post. "Deriding the parenting skills..." That is a hoot. You pompous fuck! Now, let's talk science.

[wayall1]

@joecushley More Ad Hominem Abusive - schoolyard stuff. You remind me of those guys who can dish out a lot of abuse but can't take any. Have you ever tried Anger Management classes.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Oh dear. Is poor ickle Wayall running to mummy. Come on, man up, this is just a bit of intellectual hurly-burly. At last you're beginning to talk about science. If I've bullied you into that, I've achieved something. Your understanding of science, and the one-eyed approach you adopt is a bit sad, but we'll bully you into open-mindedness yet.

[charlienethercoat094]

those 99.9% worlds climate scientist absolute bollocks

[williamwilson666]

Used to like David Bellamy as a child. This is a bit like watching Father Christmas touch up your children.

[wayall1]

Monbiot's answer is a classic example of the argument from authority, which is a type of logical fallacy. There are many instances in science history where the majority of scientists have been wrong about an issue.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Clutching at straws, Wayall. Go and read the evidence, as he tells Bellamy to. He tells him where it is, and Bellamy repeats the crappy old "All you've got is computer models" bullshit. Then *you* follow up with a logical fallacy! hilarious! "Scientists have been wrong in the past so they must be now." Priceless!

[wayall1]

@joecushley As Edmund Burke said "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Monbiot's argues that he has a big list of scientists who agree with him so he must be right. This is the argument from authority and it isn't a conclusive argument. There are many instances in scientific history when the overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong. An obvious example is Galileo. Your paraphrasing of my argument is incorrect and an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy.

[joecushley]

Empty rhetoric Wayall, old boy. Throw in a Burke and you almost sound intelligent "Obvious example is Galileo", it was the Church who made sure that Galileo's views were repressed, on pain of death. A very different scenario to the thousands of climate scientists who compile independent work and in the main agree on AGW. Tell me, why do you believe the very, very few qualified scientists who discredit AGW? Isn't that an argument from authority? They've got bugger all evidence, that's for sure.

[wayall1]

@joecushley I have provided you with a lot of evidence, from your own scientists, which show the AGW theory to be exaggerated and basically weak. I've pointed out the weakness of your argument from authority, yet you continue to use it. $200 billion has been spent by western governments since 1990 on the global warming "problem". Scientists have flocked to where the money is. That many have done so is evidence of careerism not scientific truth. I understand the Church had a lot of money as well.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Your understanding of the 'argument from authority' fallacy is deeply flawed and self evidently hypocritical. You have presented NO evidence of the weakness of AGW. A couple of quotes taken out of context do not overturn the basic science and the piles of empirical support for AGW. In 20 years govts have spent $200 billion (source please, almost certainly an exaggeration). That's chicken feed for a problem which has and will cause much, much more damage in monetary terms.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Your not as clever as you think you are. Since alarmists use the argument from authority constantly, I quoted your own authorities. As usual alarmists want it both ways - you want to use the argument but deny me use of it. The "out of context" evasion has to be the oldest trick in the book - every politician caught with his pants down uses it. Your "deeply flawed" comment is cribbed directly from alarmist scientist. Without any back-up it is meaningless.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 But I am much, much cleverer than you. The only 'alarmists' about are those who claim that reducing emissions and investing in renewable forms of energy will bankrupt nations send us back to the Stone Age. Begin with Spencer Weart's 'Discovery Of Global Warming' for all the basic science and evidence to get you started on understanding the issues, because you quite plainly don't at the moment.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Of course, you are cleverer than me, Dr. Joe, now just take a few deep breaths. I think in this email you have just about perfected the tone of patronizing condescension and nerdy "know-jt-allness" to be a certified member of the CAGW community. I do have a second question Dr. Joe. If the AGW science is as rock-solid as you say, why do AGW scientists have to use logical fallacies-argument from authority, ad hominum attacks and the argument from ignorance- to make their case?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 They use empirical evidence, Wayall. You really should have a little read one day and not just swallow the shit that the Oil Industry shovels into your gob. Start with Spencer Weart's, Discovery Of Global Warming.

[wayall1]

@joecushley I guess you never got the memo-you're arguments from authority and name-calling just don't cut it anymore Dr. Joe. You're the moral equivalent of a schoolyard bully bragging about how many friends he has and calling people names. You're email thread has been conspicuously absent of any science. In a scientific, question whose policy implications involve restructuring the worlds' economy, you'll have to do a little better than that.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Go and read the Stern Report. The world economy is being and has been restructured thru history. In this case it would be to save the human race from our own depredations and it would redound to our benefit. If you want to stick with capitalism have a look at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Erm, where has your science been?! Couple of questions. Do you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you believe the stratosphere is cooling and troposphere warming? You've so much to read and learn...

[joecushley]

@joecushley So, to sum up. You prefer David Bellamy's fraudster website with no sources and fabricated 'facts' to hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in Science and Nature, and to the World Glacier Monitoring Service's figures. Oh, but I'm forgetting that they're 'authorities', and I'm 'arguing from them'! Get real. You're not a climate scientist, I'm not a climate scientist. It comes down to who you chose to believe...? I think you've made a spectacularly bad choice.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe, you're an excitable boy, you referenced yourself on this comment. You have paraphrased to create a "straw man", yet another logical fallacy.

Yes, you continue, to use the argument from authority "ad nauseum". I guess my point is that you don't make logical scientific arguments, but rely on emotional, fallacious political ones. That's fine, just don,t pretend otherwise.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Oh gosh, pressing the wrong button on Youtube completely invalidates my argument. Prat. Answer the questions about science which I posed. And tell me why you lied about Phil Jones. I have the science. You have political positions and a feeble understanding of philosophical logic.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Give me one logical argument, just one, which comes anywhere near disproving AGW. (Cue sound of tumbleweed blowing thru Denierville...)

[wayall1]

@joecushley This will be third time I have made this argument, while you were down in the school yard bragging about your important friends and calling me names. The argument is based on the Phi Jones BBC interview. He stated that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and in fact there has been cooling since 2002. During this period there have been significant increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. AGW theory & climate predicted a much larger warming. (cont)

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Ah! Here we get to the crux. You said that Jones said NO WARMING. You lied. The trend from 1995 is at 92% statistical significance. From 1994 and earlier it is much higher and well above the 95% which is seen as the benchmark for acceptance. 1995 was also a cherrypicked year, the only year around that time that would give a result below 95%. There's a difference between NO WARMING and 92%. Do you get it?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Do you also get that there are other variables in the climate (no, AGW scientists aren't fixated on CO2, tho' denialists straw-man this point endlessly) and that no climate scientists have *ever* predicted an inexorable and linear upwards trend. Current temperature trends are pretty much in line with what a lot of AGW-propounding scientists have predicted. Tell me who has confidently and categorically predicted "a much larger warming"?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 There's a big problem with the 'no warming between 1995-2009/ cooling between 2002-2009' argument. The 'cooling' is less statistically significant than the 'warming'. You can't have it both ways, unless you're a fraud and a twister (over to you). Anyway, 2002-2009 is too short a period to use as a trend, no one with any statistical know-how would use 8 years. You know little about philosophy, but, it seems, even less about statistics. Btw, 2010 will fuck the tiny cooling...

[wayall1]

@joecushley (cont) Therefore, AGW theory is non-predictive and probably invalid.

Jones also stated that the warmings from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 were statistically identical to the 1975-1998 warming. These two warmings occurred before man-made CO2 became a factor. In fact, when atmospheric CO2 began increasing in 1940, the climate cooled for 25 years. The 1975-1998 warming isn't "unprecedented" and is within natural climate variability. CO2 doesn't even correlate well warming let alone cause

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Oh boy. Mr Cut-and-Paste strikes again... Pleeeease do some reading. Of course manmade CO2 was a factor in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Have you never heard of the Industrial Revolution? Have you ever even gone to a site like Realclimate and pressed the Start Here button? It may not be to your taste but it seems like you've never even read the opposing arguments. It's like arguing against Xerox-Man. I go to Wattsupmyarse and Climatefraudit makes me feel unclean, but I go. Try it.

[joecushley]

Woah, a 'probably'! You're beginning to think like a scientist, though the non sequiturs/false syllogisms again show what a chump you are when it comes to logic. Btw, Jones doesn't say 'statistically identical' but I'll let that pass. Google '1988 James Hansen prediction' and go to an 'alarmist' site and read. I've been to 'denialist' sites and their rubbishing of Hansen is very weak. Good predictive power shown by Hansen in my book. There are other examples. Search and read without prejudice.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 @wayall1 Hoo, hoo. Now you bring in the ol' straw man. You have been busy on Wikipedia. Shame you misuse the terms so horribly. Please, let's talk about the issues. Do you deny there is warming at all? Or are you one of those who admits that there is warming "but it's some kind of natural cycle...*mumble*... solar...*mumble, wave hands*... Vikings...*mumble*, cos Richard Lindzen says... (oops I just argued from authority, but when I do it it isn't an argument from authority...)"?

[wayall1]

@joecushley I hope your significant other knows how much time your spending with the "straw man". What's this silly ramble where you put words in my mouth, if not a "straw man". I never said any of these things. As I said without the Argument from Authority, Ad Hominem Abusive & Straw Man fallacies you have nothing. Every one of your comments proves my point!

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Oh, I love it when you right-wingers start showing your homophobia. Always edifying, a right-winger sniggering like a schoolboy retard.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Blind, blind, blind. With your fingers in your ears shouting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening." I'll try just once more. Here are a couple of questions. I hope you answer them more quickly and directly than other questions I've set. Who wins this debate between Bellamy and Monbiot and why? Have you ever quoted someone you think knows more than you? If so, why is that not an argument from authority?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 And you quoted one scientist, *out of context*. That phrase means something you know. Do read a little bit more about Trenberth's work and you'll understand what he meant by his 'travesty' comment. Don't just copy and paste from some oil industry funded cesspit of a blog. Oh, and while we're at it you still haven't apologised for your lie about Phil Jones, claiming he said there has been 'no warming' in the last 15 years. He didn't say that, but you lied and said he did.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Why don't you explain how Trenberth's quote is out of context, since you're such an expert. You make a lot of self-satisfied accusations but never back them up. In fact, you're entire thread of emails consists of little more than continual ad hominum attacks which is, of course, another logical fallacy. You're very predictable, I've been waiting for the Big Oil satan to rear his comical head. At least try and make your ad homs a little less shopworn and tired.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 I love it when people say things like 'Your (sic) not as clever as you think you are'. You can smell their fear. They know that the person they're dealing with *is* better-read and generally more intelligent than they are, and they're scared. Don't be frightened, Wayall, a bit of reading and you too can understand the subject. Just let go of Big Oil's hand and take those first teetering steps towards independent thought. Now, say hello to Scientific Method, he's here to help you...

[wayall1]

@joecushley Dr. Joe is psychoanalyzing someone he never met based on the contents of one sentence. Being a doctor, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of Freudian Projection. You've revealed some of the horrors of your psyche and I'm sure Oprah will appreciate you sharing this. I hope you get the help you need.

Dr. Joe. why,if alarmist science is as solid as you say, has your email thread consisted entirely of logical fallacies - arguments from authority and ad hominum attacks?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Ad hominem, ignoramus. Drop the pseudo-philosophical sophistry and flim-flam. You've been given a few fancy sounding phrases such as 'argument from authority', but don't really know what they mean. I've told you where to start. You've obviously never engaged with proper science. What's so scary about the prospect. Oh, I forgot. It will blow your crackpot right-wing worldview to smithereens. Far easier to carry on lying. Good simple word that: lying.

[wayall1]

@joecushley These concepts aren't hard to understand, it's rather surprising that someone as "well-read" and "clever" as you finds them so. Here's a definition of the abusive form of this classic logical fallacy- "Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument". You're comments have contained many examples- you have called me- a "liar", an "ignoramus", "fraud" with a "crackpot right-wing worldview". Comprende?

[joecushley]

Oh dear, you've got this arse-backwards. I'm calling you those things for good reasons. Phil Jones didn't say there had been no warming in the last 15 years, did he? So, calling you a liar is a statement of fact. Fraud leads on from the liar. Ignoramus, because you have ignored evidence. OK, 'crackpot' is matter of opinion, but right-winger you are. Comprende? If I insulted you without reason to demean your 'argument', *that* would be an ad hominem. Note spelling. It's from the Latin...

[wayall1]

@joecushley Argument from Authority is not hard to understand either." Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is: Source A says that p is true; Source A is authoritative; Therefore, p is true". In your case Source A is: the majority of climate scientists or various books. Comprende?

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Erm, there's no point in cutting and pasting this, thanks. I majored in philosophy at university. So, essentially you are telling me that one should never quote anyone else? Even if they are massively qualified scientists who've made something their life's work, and you know diddley-squat about the subject... Think about it.

[wayall1]

@joecushley Please explain how my understanding of Argument from Authority and Ad Hominum Abusive are "deeply flawed" as you state. Please explain how my quotes from Trenberth are "out of context". These are AGW platitudes which I have seen repeated numerous times, but have never seen substantiated.

[joecushley]

@wayall1 Platitudes?! You're the fuckin' king! I wouldn't dare compete. But that would be because I believe in the truth. Go and look at Trenberth's work. His research supports his belief in AGW. In the quotes you've taken out of context he is bemoaning specific problems at specific times. He is complaining about the CERES satellite data in the first case, and a lack of funding. "What?! They want MORE money?!" screams Wayall. This is stuff is easy to find out, but you still prefer lies....

[arneperschel]

Note that this debate was held in 2005 and that Monbiot may not have known all the details of the science.

A short answer to the CO2 question is this:

1)The troposhere has been observed to be warming while the stratosphere is cooling. This is consistent with greenhouse gas warming theory and inconsistent with solar influence.

2)Plants take up much more CO2 with 12C than 13C (carbon isotopes). Therefore CO2 released from the combustion of fossil fuels has a high 12C/13C ratio...

[arneperschel]

...We have observations of a clear increase in the 12C/13C ratio in the atmosphere. This shows the increased CO2 can not come from volcanoes nor from the oceans. Besides, the oceans have actually taken up about half of our emissions. Hence the acidification.

When people talk about multiple lines of evidence, they refer to this kind of evidence. Too difficult to explain to the public in 30 seconds but not less true and compelling.

[HumanSayNo]

George Monbiot 666 long live the NWO!!!

[Rotpig]

Monbiot doesn't realise that he is making a massive logical error by using "argument from authority" to prove his case. Notice how Monbiot can't answer David Bellamy's simple request for evidence?

[joecushley]

@Rotpig He does! He points him to the various REAL temperature readings from satellites and radiosondes (NOT computer models). Do you agree that CO2 can trap infrared radiation? Do you agree that increases temperatures? Do you believe that one should never adduce authority in an argument? Bellamy himself keeps talking about himself as a scientist of standing, thus arguing from authority, but then proves by his lack of care in checking his sources that he's a poor judge.

[hansupgwai]

LOL - Bellamy is a fool. He's just a media whore - he'll support anything that gets him back in the public eye.

[hypno59]

Scientist versus political journalist

[joecushley]

@hypno59 Hasbeen who doesn't follow the scientific method versus a graduate in Zoology from Oxford. monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/1­0/junk-science/ Read here to see a demolition in print which shows Bellamy's 'argument from authority' is based on fraud and a complete lack of evidence.

[2worldsatwar]

David Bellamy is correct, man made climate change is a load of shit.

Cap and trade will finance the one world government and the new world order.

[YTubeArraignment]

The concept of Man-made GLOBAL WARMING has been humiliated, so let's destroy the free world's industrial & agricultural base, & thus starve to death a billion people of the 3rd world, in the name of CLIMATE CHANGE. In 1905 the state of Georgia (U.S.) had orange groves. They no longer do. Orange-growers have been retreating further south for 100 years because of recurrent, devastating freezes.

[Wakeymedia1]

Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

It happens to have as contributors several ex IPCC scientists, the former editor of the New Scientist, other mainstream and very senior scientists AND the founder of Greenpeace.

Sorry.

[joecushley]

@Wakeymedia1 Do you denialists ever actually keep up with the debate? Several of the contributors to GGWS have complained about how their interviews were edited/used, and graphs and other info used in this travesty of a programme have been shown to be faked and distorted. Blimey, it's like fighting against a giant marshmallow with you people...!

[DrThorpeLee]

"who alleges that the queen is the head of an international drugs syndicate"

She is. It's called the Black Nobility.

[phsousa71]

Mr. Monbiot uses always the same strategy: he never answers tha question directly. Why didn´t he answer the question if the carbon is inducing global warming. Where´s the evidence? The role of human behavior on climate change is not even a scientific question, from a popperian point of view. We cannot go further than a simple correlation. And, as you all know, a correlation doesn´t mean a cause/effect relation.

[icemachine79]

@dddave999 You don't think that a scientist being shown to have "cooked the books" is humiliating? Do you even know what a scientist does? Do you know how important facts and evidence are to a real scientist?

Perhaps you'd like to give some examples of the "dishonest" reporting on AGW backed up with evidence. And just so we're clear, shouting CLIMATEGATE! does NOT count as evidence. You'll have to actually back up your claims this time.

[sstylianou]

George I suggest you check your facts again you talk nonsense we are freezing cold and this climate change has been exposed as a fraud by 'The Guardian' called 'Climate Gate' David Bellamy is right after all so I rest my case.

[icemachine79]

@sstylianou Just adding -gate to the end of something doesn't make it a magic bullet. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly HOW "climategate" proved what Bellamy said. People love to throw around the word, yet nobody has explained exactly how it disproves man-made climate change, or why only a handful of e-mails out of THOUSANDS taken from the UEA servers are the only ones relevant. So, would you care to enlighten us? Or are you just going to hide behind the "government conspiracy" bullshit?

[ninyae]

@sstylianou, you might be freezing cold in the UK, but that ain't happening here in south eastern Australia. We have had a massive drought for 10 years, or more in some regions. There has been rain this last summer but plenty of areas remain drought declared. Where I live, used to snow every winter, now we are lucky to see some sleet.I worked with a fellow who grew up in this area, who 10 years ago told me how much more snow there was in the 50's. Something is happening in Oz for sure.

[sstylianou]

George Monbiot is a NWO puppet he should be shot!

[properwired]

climate change denier snigger maybe the moronic sheeple out there do not know the whole thing was exposed as a fraud with the whistle blower who leaked the emails, This is Nazi style eugenics science do you think black Africans are inferior and rising food prices due to this scam should starve their children that Nazi bitch may grin all she wants we are not all moronic brain dead sheep who just accept what we are told some of us think

[icemachine79]

@properwired Please explain exactly what was said in the e-mails that proved climate change is a hoax. Do you understand what the e-mails were saying? Did you even read them? Or are you just parroting what you read on some lame website like the one Bellamy used to get his faulty data? You can't just yell "CLIMATEGATE!" and leave it at that. You have to explain yourself, and so far nobody has managed to do that.

[LittleTerror848]

@ the person who uploaded this.

He don't need to check his facts you dumb shit, have you looked out side in the past 10 years its fucking cold, its getting colder, are you just asleep or dumb or something...

[LittleTerror848]

I'm fucking freezing cold and its COLD every freaking year, don't tell me the globe is warming you dumb asses, ITS COLD FFS...

[majikninja07]

So i've never been able to find the real questions the old guy asked " were is the evidence that co2 is causing it" and he just keeps saying scientific evidence, evidence, attack attack attack rather then trying to prove his views

[judomagyar]

1) George Monbiot is intentionally referring to "climate change" and "global warming" sa if they were the same thing.. Just to confuse the public.

2) When David Bellamy asks for data Monbiot provides a list of authorities that are on his side.

3) consensus is NOT science

4) Post peak-oil world coupled with overpopulation will cause much greater problems within decades. see:"Hubbert-curve"

5) Global warming, if ever happens, will effect us within hundreds of years.

[IndrasBlade77]

George reveals the same old lies that the pro AGW zealots spew forth. Ad hominem and appeal to authority.

science is not a consensus, it's about evidence, and moronic Monbiot presents ZERO EVIDENCE! i WOULD LOVE TO SEE HIM DEBATE MONCKTON, MONCKTON WOULD TEAR HIM A NEW ASSHOLE!!!

BUT MONBIOT WON'T AGREE TO THAT BECAUSE HE'S A GUTLESS COWARD!!!

[fiandrhi]

What lies are you accusing Monbiot of, Indras? Monckton has been caught in dozens of lies.

[properwired]

Climate gate emails show who was lieing we need to get rid of the medieval warm period for example your hockey stick graph is totally debunked. Banking elites who fund crooks is not science that is the same shit that was used by the Nazis with eugenics you nothing but a NWO Nazi shill shame of you for this fraud. if you want to save the trees please explain why hemp in not used for paper. It is you caught in dozens of lies your global government will fail shill scum

[fiandrhi]

No. It's not "my hockeystick graph" and it's not just one graph. It's numerous sets of data, all showing the same hockeystick shape, and higher temps currently than during the MWP.  The NAS looked at Mann's hockeystick and approved it. You believe this denialist bullshit because you read nothing but denialist websites. You don't know WTF you're talking about. Not even the basics. And of COURSE you didn't view the videos I provided. Why let information cloud your anti-AGW religion, eh?

[fiandrhi]

Oh, and as to "Nazis", have a look at the Stormfront website and do a search on "global warming". You will find hundreds of postings from actual Nazis in the stormfront forums. They all agree with you.

[fiandrhi]

Google:

1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

For the data sets I'm talking about.

[fiandrhi]

For the NAS affirmation of the hockeystick graph, Google:

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph

[properwired]

Your PS3 hockey graph are a joke I will not debate morons you bring it down to your level and try to beat me with experience. Go back to your banking friends I hope they pay you well for the death your views bring. Killing black people by starving them is sick you vile NWO shill

[fiandrhi]

Right, why look at evidence? Your religious faith needs none.

[Herecomesthefatlady]

Wow.  So you will not debate with people who have more experience than you. In other words you have come to a conclusion based on ignorance.

Killing black people? Do you know what is happening in Dafur right now because of Climate Change?

[properwired]

Stop using the term climate change the climate always changes your a global heating nut despite the fact all the temp records show the climate is cooling look outside and you see snow you fool. Do you stand outside with banners saying the world will end like all the rambling nuts laughed at on every street corner. Your the joke of the internet

[Herecomesthefatlady]

@properwired

You may need reminding that the world is a very big place. I certainly don't see snow when I look out of my window dickhead. Right now in Dafur people are fighting and killing each other over water and land. Australia has had its hottest winter on record. Kenyans are facing another devastating drought. Check NASAs latest figures, 2009 was globally one of the two hottest years on record.  Don't believe me? Check out potholer54s latest video 'Has the Earth been cooling?'

[Herecomesthefatlady]

@properwired

Blah blah blah medieval warm period blah blah blah hockey stick graph debunked.

1. There was no medieval warm period outside of northern Europe.

2. The Hockey Stick graph was questioned, independently re-examined and confirmed. It has even been supported by new data.  That is not the same as 'totally debunked'. In fact it is the opposite.

The way that you use false claims to call people who comment on this interesting video 'Nazis' is extremely revealing.

[LittleTerror848]

@Herecomesthefatlady

ERM NO!

The hockey stick graph is the result of removing 90% of the temperature monitors from rural areas and keeping maybe even less than 10% that were based in warm spots such as cites. It does then not take a rocket scientist to work out that no matter what the average temperature was we would have that ridiculous excuse of a so called scientific graph...

This has been admited so you can now STFU and stop being a retard.

[joecushley]

@LittleTerror848 Jesus!! Read some proper science. This is nonsense. The UHI fantasy has been trashed many times. Have you not read about how Watts's attempt to discredit the positioning of temperature stations completely backfired on him?! You live a very cocooned life. Open your mind, please.

[LittleTerror848]

@Herecomesthefatlady

The hockey stick graph is not supported what so ever, apart from the cherry picked data from the remaining 10%, this is not scientific, this is fraud.

Or a better word absolute shite...

[iansummerell]

David was right. we now know he was.

[fiandrhi]

I am so deeply embarrassed for David Bellamy. he seems like such a salt of the earth fellow. He is painfully humiliated here and so deeply wrong.

[properwired]

Really explain climate gate and coldest winter in 30 years. Your a killer your views starve people to death and your a vile NWO shill

[fiandrhi]

What "coldest winter" is that, prop? We're talking about global temps, here. This winter was actually the HOTTEST the southern hemisphere ever saw, since instrumental records have been kept, making 2009 the 2nd hottest year ever, overall.

How do I "explain" the CRU emails? Like this:

watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

and this:

watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

and this:

"Climategate Scientist Vindicated By Penn State Investigation"

How do you explain that 100% of national academies of science accept the science?

[kingneddy]

monbiot is just a paid socialist attack dog. blah blah blah blah.thats all thats coming out of his mouth.

[otipua08]

I have a lot of respect for David Bellamy ,but I'm afraid he's dropped the ball backing the human induced climate change denial gang.Thank heavens for people like George Monbiot sniffing out the bull shit spread around by the head in the sand denial crowd.

[linuxpuppy]

You thick cunt wheres your fucking brain at??? reply!!!

[otipua08]

@linuxpuppy

[otipua08]

@linuxpuppy Wow! you are definately a person with issues. Why would I entertain any thought of a dialogue with you? I' just glad my kids didn't see your offensive brain dead reply.

[IndrasBlade77]

@otipua08 Monbiot is a corrupt retarded simpleton and is a truly evil man.

Monckton would annhilate him,I would sooooooo love to see that!

[DickChambers69]

Monbiot is a nasty peice of work.

[jackp6]

What an insane criminal psychopath that George Monbiot ... :-))

[3mnoseyella]

Leak emails the elite are lying to us all for there own benefit

wake up people our children need us

[powderbomber]

you must be a published scientist with evidence counterracting the other 99% of scientists in the world then? could you please post some links to backup your arguments?

didnt think you could....

what do you mean religious? isnt religion having "faith" in something you cannot prove is real? then the science of climate change is the exact opposite - completely based on hundreds of years of measured and observed effects, and transparent peer reviewed science

[ager74]

Listen to the shyte tha Monbiot talks but he doesnhet tell you that the C02 in the Atmosphere is miniscule and we only contribute to 30% of that miniscule amount, lol and that it would take 30 years to reduce Carbon to reduce temps in the world by 1 degree hahaha, this science is laughable and also if we had one volcanic erruption then everything we did would be undone lmfao. And this is what all you crazy religeous scientists are selling loool. Stop peddling your lies

[bigswano]

c02 is miniscule is it?

sure it's measured in ppm, but it's in the hundreds

also if the c02 heats the air temp just a bit, then water vapour (the most common greenhouse gas) is able to trap more heat in the atmosphere

and anyway, cfc's were present in miniscule amounts in the atmosphere and look at the damage they did to the ozone layer

[IndrasBlade77]

@bigswano wrong. increased humidity leads to increased return flow subsidence from the upper tropopheric emission level letting the same amount of outgoing long wave radiation escape.

Also increased humidity leads to increased low level cloud formation and an albedo effect cooling he earth.

CFCs by the way are a completely separate mechanism and have no bearing on the CO2 debate.