CONT'D story behind the facade of climate science, it would be Kobiashi Maru before anybody knew it. Dr. Mann told us, in a recently-released climategate e-mail, "as long as they are losing the PR battle...that's the reason for the site (RealClimate)..." Alarmists are losing the PR battle, they've been losing the scientific one for 5 years or so.
@smartalek65 How come you spam these comments but never address the points made by other people?
Lets make this simple for you and give you a real chance to prove you are honest and in the end correct. What is your best evidence against global warming and what evidence would it take for you accept human caused climate change?
Then perhaps it would benefit your audience to know the REAL reason you try this argumentum ad hominem towards Monckton. In a debate with Dr. Denniss last year, a full 9% of the audience had swung from support for CAGW to skeptical of it-which the forum moderator said he'd never seen before. Using facts and logic only, he'd done what your pal Dr. Mann feared most-won over a large section of a viewing audience. Shows why alarmists fear debating actual facts-the public finds out the REAL CONT'D
@greenman3610 The only one who calls him any skeptic's "hero" is you. The only reason you try to label him as such is to smokescreen your dying cause of CAGW. You refuse to discuss facts anyone more. Perhaps we should discuss your hypocrite hero, Al Gore...
I'm a wreck from laughing a Monckton and his clueless minions. We're trying to come up with ways to keep him center stage - that he's your hero speaks volumes about who you people are.
@greenman3610 "So you believe he's cured aids?" Strawman, invalid argument. When it comes to climate change, he has his facts a LOT better than you do. End of story.
@greenman3610 When it comes to facts, Monckton would chew you up and spit you out. Your vids are full of distortions, misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods; and you still refer people to them in these comment sections.
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future, failing that the backup system is used which employs a china teacup and some old fashioned tea, not the baggy stuff and voila predictions that would have as much bearing on reality as a climatologist riding the train of plenty.
@greenman3610 I wish I could help you with that, but I think you actually could arrange for it if you really tried! You have credibility via your YT-videos by now, and perhaps your job could help you understand what needs to be done(forgot your job). I am certain you would be respectable. A good respectable debate you vs him would be awesome!
I have a tiny FB-group, and that's about it :-) I have posted some of your vids there.
Monckton is lying again. Go to Prof Abraham's vid presentation & u'll see he uses Monckton's own graphs, charts etc which all have large headlines stating things like 'arctic sea ice is increasing' or 'polar bears thrive in warm weather'. Then Abraham checks the Source that Monckton himself gives for these headlines and finds the Source does not agree. So Abraham emails the author to double check and sure enough Monckton has it all back to front. Monckton is a liar OR he is completely delusional
I didn't like interview with Monckton. Monckton's point was clear, scientists were lied about his presentation and he is supposedly going to file a charges against Prof. Abraham. This it self is huge. I would ask Monckton if he contacted scientist him self to set the record straight.
well, I know Abraham - and no, Monckton has not sued him, and won't - because then he'd have to get real and actually prove something, which he can't. He would only be further unmasked as a blowhard grifter and snake oil salesman.
@greenman3610 My view of Monckton is same as yours, based on dozen of videos about Monckton. The problem is that Monckton is so persuading and people who watched only this one video, would most probably take Mockton's side.
looks like the kiwis aren't just better at union than us. if this is a true representation of kiwi media, then aussies are being dominated on two fronts (with the exception of the chaser team of course!)! great interview!
@heymanslowdown On greenman's latest vid, I point out 6 empirical scientific tests CAGW fails. You might look, unless you're afraid to find out that we're not "deluded."
@greenman3610 All joking aside, it's not I who's been drinking anybody's "kool-aid." And I don't buy snake oil, either. Applying empirical science, the notion that human greenhouse emissions are even as much as likely to cause a climate catastrophe is untenable. It's evident that Monckton, whatever his errors, is quite accurately reporting the science.
@Rockstar969 You have no idea how you sound, do you? It's called ad hominem, compounded with another fallacy-going from a specific (and groundless) falsehood, to groundless generalities. I repeat what Monckton told the reporter: off with you.
don't get caught up in the hype purposed by those who would profit from lies or deter you from the truth so they can serve their own purposes w/e they may be, all be it factually inaccurate , while never actually making a valid point.
@greenman3610 If anyone's ingested anything that makes them loco, it's not me. It's not me who attempts to silence those who disagree with pejoratives, slurs, and false psychoanalysis. It's not I who implies he knows better than his fellow man what's good for him. It's not I who mischaracterizes the motives of those who disagree with him. Someone should look at themselves, I already have.
@smartalek65 Monkton talks of FINANCIAL peer reviewed literature, the science of profit is being peer reviewed is it? Wankton is a bought man, a petrodollar whore who presents cherry picked info to low IQ judaeo christian republican fucktards, the rapacious beer guns and jesus fuck pigs of the planet, like you.
The only snake oil being sold is the notion that anthropogenic GHG's are going to cause a climate catastrophe. I'm not the one trying to sell that that pile of (expletive).
I don't come here to kill Monkton, but to pity him. He reminds me of Hitler the way he behaves. Especially the way he thinks. Although his words don't actually reflect rational thinking. Maybe his brain has been invaded by a parasite that has taken control. You'd be surprised just how common it is. Or else there has been some brain damage. I only hope he can recover. He is after all typically British. Looking.
I Like the bit where he says Prof Abraham's is facing a libel charge, we all know that isn't going to happen, Monckton will never take it to court he knows he would make a fool of himself.
his bulging eyes are actually characteristic of a person on the verge of or in a state of panic, probably the consequence of a genetic anomoloy involving monoamine oxidase acting on the balance of neurotransmitters. it's actually what makes people smart, but overactive in certain individual circumstances it can cause problems such as autism, or similar less extreme neurological conditions. this can mean an impaired cognitive condition, and compulsive beahaviour
@kielrhys Could such a condition be one of the sources of some of the stories in the 3 bibles? Thankfully we can assume that so few people will, in the end, or at the end of the day, continue to be alarmed and hysterical they will be as distracting as a couple (or maybe a hand full) of exploding human heads. If you don't see the head explode, I am sure you will not hear it. They don't make go off like a bomb, you know. But when they do they typically go off mid sentence.
"Cognitive impairment is common in hyperthyroidism and may present as one or more different syndromes. In one review of elderly patients with hyperthyroidism, dementia and confusion was found in 33 percent and 18 percent of patients, respectively"
Goolgle: Neurologic manifestations of hyperthyroidism and Graves' disease
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
@541iceman Mitigation, in the CAGW climate sense, can only be done 2 ways: either sequestration, which requires the use staggeringly costly technologies; or through vastly reducing emissions, which would require shutting down cheaper sources of energy production and transportation to more costly and less productive technologies that, quite frankly, cost jobs as much as money.
@541iceman Actually, manipulation is what such types as Al Gore, James Hanson, Micheal Mann, and others (our host, Herr Grunmann, among them) are doing. When individuals like Monckton correct these alarms-even if he's not always right-he's PERSONALLY attacked. Most people realize that such ad hominems means he's right, because if he weren't the alarmists would only confront his facts. As I've pointed out with SLR, we've every reason to believe he has his facts straight there.
@541iceman As for "evidence" that adaptation beats mitigation, I'd say that it's the other way around-where's the evidence that mitigation's less expensive? Humans have adapted to changes for millenia. Look at New York. It'sbeen there more than 300 years, and sea level's been rising all that time.
"mitigation vs adaptation" Over thousands of years, humans were not manipulating climate; that's a recent situation. People practice mitigation all the time, just not in climate so far. When the evidence is that life could be better tomorrow if we do something today, that's mitigation. Farmers rotating crops, parents having their kids immunized, countries forging alliances with others for future border stability, ... Mitigation can be the economically correct choice.
@541iceman Ah, we finally agree on something. However, I disagree on the public's alleged lack of ability to assess the issue. Alarmists in climate science, especially "science reporters," conducted individual campaigns (usually), like our host, to prevent any views other than "consensus" views from becoming known. The public at large may not totally grasp climate science, but they do understand and rightly resent being manipulated.
@541iceman Correcting a couple misrcharacterizations: 1) The public also deserves to know just how incomplete the "evidence" is, as well as how slim the chance is that any immediate change will occur, and the fact that this should theoretically be occuring and it isn't. Then there's the notion that skeptics advocate "doing nothing," when we actually advocate adjusting to climatic changes, as humanity has always done.
@smartalek65 We can agree on something: yes, the public has a right to know the quality of the evidence on which decisions are to be based. However, they don't and never will have the knowledge to assess this. So, they have to rely on expert opinion and, in fact, on "consensus" expert opinion, just like with public health issues, transport safety, security threats and so on.
You assume adaptation is cheaper than mitigation; but what's the evidence for that?
CONT'D 2) If you wish to act as though that slim possibility were imminent, you are certainly free to do so. However, don't try FORCING others to accept that view and the staggeringly expensive measures it requires on others.
@541iceman 1) I never said anything about scientists or the IPCC fearmongering; I was clearly referring to those who, like Al Gore, James Hanson, and our host, who treat that slim POSSIBILITY as written-in-stone imminent event. The possibility, as noted in one of those papers I referenced, can only occur IF things happen almost immediately. As any geologist will tell you that nothing on this planet happens so quickly. CONT'D
@smartalek65 Geologists study rocks, not ice. So, their idea of "fast" is not the way to judge SLR. Instead, ask glaciologists. We have recent evidence that ice sheets *can* respond rapidly, through changed dynamic balances, to changes like surface water drainage and collapsed ice shelves. People should know that.
*Then* decide what to do about it. Don't decide on the "solution" (do nothing), then judge each piece of science by what fits your solution.
Point being is that Monckton is correct concerning sea level rise, and the fear-mongering of the likes of Al Gore and James Hanson is unjustified. His next point concerned Polar Bears and their alleged "endangerment" from CAGW. In the 1970's, there were an estimated 5,000 polar bears worldwide; during this time of allegedly (according to alarmists) unprecedented temperature rise, polar bear numbers have increased 5-fold. Another alarm cancelled.
If you actually read the IPCC report and the peer-reviewed literature, the scientists aren't "fear mongering". They are quite clear about the SLR projections (best estimate 7-23" by 2100) but note that 1-2 m is possible given what we have recently learned about ice sheet dynamics and interactions with the ocean through ice shelf loss.
Given the choice between "there's absolutely nothing to worry about" (Monckton) and "insure against 1-2 m SLR", I prefer the latter.
Since you wish to try dragging this out indefinitely, I'll finish with a point that you've failed to refute or acknowledge: that we're allegedly seeing increasing ice mass loss, yet SLR isn't accelerating EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE. Accelerating SLR is a fear based on what deeply flawed computer models say MIGHT happen, and doesn't match reality. Period.
@smartalek65 1) Well, science is about everyone getting to the same understanding. Sometimes it takes a long time. You seem to expect me to agree to your cherry-picks because you're fluent in citations. But when you cite people apparently saying what they don't say when I see them at meetings, I really feel obliged to read the actual papers again.
@smartalek65 2) The SLR/ice issue is: *present* rates of Greenland mass loss (measured from GRACE) is much smaller in SLR terms than other terms (thermal expansion + temperature glaciers). Exactly as 2007 IPCC says. A major contribution from Greenland by 2100 requires much greater loss rates than present; GRACE sees the acceleration but not to the point (yet) where it matters (to SLR). Again, see IPCC.
John Abraham completely demolished Monckton's arguments. Vids are on YouTube. It's embarrassing to see Monckton's rebuttal which is essentially parroting the same lines over again. The sad part is that the kook is allowed to stand on any platform and air his nonsense.
@541iceman That's because every respectable scientific study I've seen concerning GRACE acknowledges (in the early ones, like Remillien et al.) or highlights the severe difficulties concerning its use, like post-glacial rebound sensitivity of GRACE. Pfeffer et al. (Science 321: 1340-1343, 2008) report that sea level rise above 2 meters by 2100 is physically impossible, and to rise to 2 meters would require QUICKLY accelerating SLR, which isn't happening (although if the CAGW hypothesis CONT'D
CONT'D is correct, it should ALREADY be happening, being as our current climate is allegedly warmer than any in the past 2 millenia). Wendt et al's report, albeit from a single station, is a direct measurement that underscores the problems with satellite altimetry (like GRACE uses), and reports that the GAINS in ice at that station is 50% higher than what the altimetry shows there. Tedesco and Monaghan also report such things as ice melt being lower than at any time during satellite observation.
Elevation is not the same as ice mass. One station does *not* tell you very much. GRACE does *not* use altimetry; it measures gravity changes. PGR (GIA) models are being improved. Regardless, the trend in Greenland and West Antarctic ice loss is towards more rapid rates.
Models predict (and the IPCC assumes) that the cold "core" of Antarctica will receive higher precip in a warmer world. This is one reason why their 2007 assessment was for zero mass loss from Antarctica.
@smartalek65 From Tedesco and Monaghan (2009): "Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends."
@541iceman Then answer the point raised. Is Monckton correct (i.e. that alarm is unjustified based on current science), or is our host (that if we don't take drastic steps he advocates, we're in for a sea level rise that will be catastrophic for human civilization). s
@smartalek65 Recent studies of ice-sheet response to ocean temperature and circulation, and to drainage of surface water to the ice-sheet base, indicate that ice sheets can respond very rapidly to climate change.
GRACE confirms acceleration of mass loss from Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets since 2002.
Based on these observations and studies, an SLR of 0.5-1.5 m by 2100 is very possible. Anything about 1 m and up will be catastrophic for some societies.
@541iceman Let's see, Wendt et al (Antarctic Science 21, 505-513, 2009) found that local measurements showed positive gains, whereas the satellite altimetry showed little trend either way in Antarctica. Tedesco & Monaghan (GRL 36, L18502, 2009; and updated in Eos 91, 1-2, 2010) found negligible ice melt in Antarctica overall. Nick et al (Nature Geoscience 2, 110-114, 2009) cautioned that "our results imply that recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient CONT'D
CONT'D and should not be extrapolated into the future." Fraunfeld et al (JGR 116, D08104, 2011) also demonstrate why SLR contributions are "likely to be modest." Like I said, alarms are unwarranted based on science. Monckton is correct there.
1) Frauenfeld et al. (2011) don't "demonstrate why {Greenland} SLR contributions are likely to be modest." They point out that, based on *present era* warm temperatures, which are comparable to the ~1930 maximum, the Greenland contribution to total SLR is small. That is, as I've said many times, Greenland contribution to SLR is presently less than steric effects, and consistent with the 2007 IPCC report.
@541iceman No, I'm just refusing to accept the attempt to frame the discussion. I began by testing Monckton, first by the point on SLR. Alarmists tell us to fear it, and base this upon scientists' "concerns" and usually invoke a "consensus." Skeptics, like Monckton, say these alarms are vastly overblown, using projections that are based on fear, not real observations. The literature is strewn with observations that disagree with the catastrophic expectation.
@smartalek65 I'm not "framing the discussion"; I'm saying that SLR is an interesting and important thing to study. The verdict is still out on how SLR changed during the 20th century.
Every study has flaws caused by the need to deal with limited (in space and time) data, and methods used to create SLR global values from insufficient data. It's clear that sea level rose, and that decadal fluctuations are large. The rest (acceleration, spatial differences) is still open for study.
@541iceman 1) Correction, SOME expect that to change. Others do not.2) Actually, yes there are those who sound the alarm, like our host. Until recently, when the trend slowed, our host on these vids used the satellite altimetry to "prove" CAGW was coming to pass. When the IPCC reported those projections, Rahmstorf (among other scientists) publicly complained they were "too low."
@smartalek65 It's as though you can't read what I'm writing. No-one in peer-review says that changes in SLR during the 20th century (mostly steric) are cause for alarm, and the 2007 IPCC summarized that ("7=23 inches by 2100"). Rahmstorf and others are concerned about 21st century trends, driven by ice-sheet mass loss. He is also critical of methodologies of other scientists analyzing 20th century data, but that's just the way science goes.
@smartalek65 At the start of the 21st century, steric changes still dominate. The concern comes from GRACE observations of accelerating (over just one decade) ice sheet mass loss, and rapid improvements in our understanding of dynamic loss of land ice due to lost ice shelves and water drainage to the ice sheet base. That concern is not a consensus at this time, but it's a reasonable concern.
Monckton does not have a problem with peer review science, but has discussed (from my memory) how it can be corrupted. The pre-concluded dip-shit who interviewed him never let him explain himself.
4) However, until the physical mechanisms linking warming atmosphere, ocean circulation, sea ice, ice shelves and ice sheets are better understood, predicted SLR will be just a rough guess. The next IPCC report will probably give a larger range than the 2007 one, but the "best guess" probably won't change much.
You know, you can play games with who said what, but it really does boil down to that central question. "Does a smudge of extra CO2 come with a positive or negative feedback, or just neutral"? We now know it is negative or neutral because the greenhouse effect has been measured with satellite data. The data is in. We have tested the models and they were wrong. Problematic AGW is a mistake. Is does not exist.
@andrewada You're not talking about Spencer and Braswell (2011), are you? Even Spencer says (on his web site) that he doesn't think his latest study disproves AGW.
@541iceman However, he also says that AGW is far from proven to be any serious problem. Feedback factors have loooong been shown to be overall negative (that is, that the empirically determined increase in temperature from doubling of co2 of 1.1 degrees is reduced to about half that). Karner (Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, D20 (2002)) was among the first to show this, and it's continued through various papers through the years.
@MrMick73 One of the things global climate models project is an increased chance of extreme weather events.Record numbers of tornadoes in the USA, droughts in Russia, Africa, unprecedented flooding in Pakistan being other recent examples. Also the heatwave in the USA.
@widebody123 This Unprecedented extreme weather , is it for the last 50 years ; 100 years , 10 Million years ?
It would be a sad test of science that any form of weather, too hot , too cold , too sunny, too wet ,cloudy, windy, would be proof that c02 causes Weather conditions. I do see how you can easily say c02 casues anything you feel like. You probably believe in God ! When you finish arguing with me about nonsense ask me what the real motive for c02 is.
@widebody123 We both know Co2 has no motive however, the Governments of the World that are co-ordinating efforts to Tax you for its use have a motive. That motive would be in the Australian Federal Government Documents outling c02 emissions and PEAK OIL.
@MrMick73 Im pretty sure December, Jnuary and February are the hottest months and the present ones are some of the coldest in the southern hemisphere. Damn that lack of scientific understanding!
Lord Monckton is NOT a member of the house of lords. The clerk of the parliaments, David Beamish, made a point of making this clear on the UK parliament website, asking him to desist claiming it directly or by implication. He is a blatant charlatan (most entertaining though).
His "bug eyes" are from Grave's Disease. There was an interesting indy documentary on him. After watching it, I wonder if his 25+ years of being sick turned him into the bitter, nihlistic knucklehead that he is. He sure has an elaborate booze collection back at his crib, btw.
really i don't like to make fun of people but i think that guy is retarded, really. look at those derp eyes. i am all for the disabled working, but this is just fucking nutty.
Lol the green movement has, Al Gore, Obama, NASA, NOAA, and every National Academy of Science, and the climate skeptics have Monkton... haha i'm fine with that. I think we're winning ;)
CONT'D Houston and Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 27: 3, 409-417, 2011) is the latest, and they find no evidence of accelerating sea level rise required by the catastrophic AGW scenario. Cancel the alarm on this one.
@smartalek65 "tore to shreds". No, they simply got the last published word. For a quick online extra rebuttal, see tinyurl*com/65bnfcy. The H&D rebuttal to R&V fails to address some of the comments by R&V, cites a seriously flawed paper (Watson 2011) as support, keeps the cherry-picking of starting in 1930,...
I don't have a problem with this; it's the way science is supposed to operate. What's wrong is jumping on every new paper and claiming it is a silver bullet for one "side" or the other.
@541iceman Wrong-o. Tore to shreds. Vermeer & Rahmstorf failed to adress the main point H & D made: that the data doesn't support the catastrophic scenario; not to mention the cherry-picking V & R use as the only way to make their own method work.
If you read the comment that I made, you would see that I did no such thing as you're accusing me of. I only cited H & D as the latest in a long line of papers that show no catastrophe from accelerating sea level rise is imminent.
@smartalek65 I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply stated that there's a tendency, *on both sides*, to claim a single publication as the end of the debate.
That being said, an imperfect analysis of North American sea level acceleration since 1930 doesn't tell you a whole lot about *future* global sea level rise. Especially as 20th century rise was mostly thermal expansion, vs ice loss from Greenland and W. Antarctica.
@541iceman You appear to have ignored the point again. What I said was that H & D is but one in a loooong string of papers (Holgate, Woppelmann et al, Wenzel & Schroter, to name some recent research) that demonstrate that sea level rise is NOT accelerating, let alone anything near the rate called for in the catastrophic scenarios.
@smartalek65 1) I am not ignoring anything: it's an interesting topic. The most detailed *global* analysis of acceleration (based on data) I know of is Church and White (2006; GRL). They show higher SLR after about 1930 than before, although with lots of decadal variation.
Since most rise to date has been steric (warming), it is not surprising that it is not showing the acceleration you'd get from ice-sheet mass loss, which is not (yet) large.
@smartalek65 2) The Wenzel and Schroter I see is JPO 2007: they get 3.4 mm/year for a model run for one decade (1993-2003), but their model is constrained by satellite altimeter data. About 2/3 is steric, 1/3 is mass. This (recent) value is greater than the 20th century average, therefore you could say that SLR is accelerating. However, as Church and White show, the decadal changes in SLR rate are large.
@smartalek65 3) So, I would agree that we are not presently seeing acceleration to a catastrophic SLR rate. That explains why the IPCC said "7-24 inches by 2100, excluding dynamic changes in ice sheets".
But, nor are we seeing deceleration, except regionally or by cherry-picking the analysis time interval. Given recent measured acceleration of mass loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, *if* those accelerations continue, mass contribution to SLR will overtake steric effects quite soon.
@541iceman Unless you count Holgate, who pointed out that (on average) SLR was faster in the FIRST half of the 20th century. Basically, the SLR has continually come in at the extreme lower ends of the IPCC projections. Sorry, but that's what the data says, and there's nothing that points to accelerating sea level rise. Point to the skeptics.
1) Mainstream scientists agree that present and 20th century SLR trends are small; hence the 2007 IPCC projection (7-23" by 2100). Based on ice-sheet dynamics (*not* 20th century sea level data), they think that will change. But interdecadal variability in SLR rate is large, so how will we know when we're seeing a genuine trend?
2) So, there's a potentially important scientific study to do and a debate to be had. I see that as a good thing; you see it as points to be scored: why the attitude?
I'm not aware of anyone who says that 20th century trend in SLR is cause for alarm; as you point out, it's not even clear that there *is* a trend. It's the presently short-term (9 year) trend in Greenland and West Antarctic mass loss from GRACE that worries SLR people.
Maybe we should test what Monckton says against the scientific literature and data. He says that sea level rise isn't accelerating the way alarmists projections say. He's correct. Tide gauge research, such as Woppelman, shows a sea level rise of about 1.8 millimeters per year in the 20th century, which is about 7 INCHES for that century. Similar research shows no acceleration of that rate. CONT'D
@Pyrolonn Yes, it's Graves disease. He claims to have cured himself, but then he claims to have a cure for cancer and AIDS too, so I'd take that with a metric shit-ton of salt.
Clever man, but sadly he's also mad as a box of frogs.
@KrunchyJD How would anyone know that? It was the evidence that convinced me. You see, 10 years ago, I was one of you who believed in an imminent crisis. The evidence says otherwise.
Monckton is NOT a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments made a point of making this clear on the UK parliament website. He is a charlatan (although most entertaining).
On one hand, if I had a hostile reporter trying to shove words and statements into my mouth, I would be extremely annoyed and would have probably ended the interview at the same point (So the media could paint me the same as Monckton).
On the Other hand, If I'd just said that 'Peer review' was stupid, dirted the name of scientists and generally shat all over the scientific method....
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is NOT a member of the house of lords. Check out the UK parliament website if you don't believe me. The clerk of the parliaments made a point of publishing a letter asking him to desist from making such claims.
Lord Monckton needs to stay on the world stage. He needs to remain a prominate figure that is heard.
If you want a man to counter the worlds accumulated scientific knowledge of climate, this is our man. That freaky looking whack pile of nuts is harming the global warming skeptic cause everytime those black moor lips pa
lol what the fuck is wrong with his eyes? maybe he's a reptoid
Gaffer213 4 weeks ago
CONT'D story behind the facade of climate science, it would be Kobiashi Maru before anybody knew it. Dr. Mann told us, in a recently-released climategate e-mail, "as long as they are losing the PR battle...that's the reason for the site (RealClimate)..." Alarmists are losing the PR battle, they've been losing the scientific one for 5 years or so.
smartalek65 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smartalek65 How come you spam these comments but never address the points made by other people?
Lets make this simple for you and give you a real chance to prove you are honest and in the end correct. What is your best evidence against global warming and what evidence would it take for you accept human caused climate change?
thesparitan 1 week ago
Then perhaps it would benefit your audience to know the REAL reason you try this argumentum ad hominem towards Monckton. In a debate with Dr. Denniss last year, a full 9% of the audience had swung from support for CAGW to skeptical of it-which the forum moderator said he'd never seen before. Using facts and logic only, he'd done what your pal Dr. Mann feared most-won over a large section of a viewing audience. Shows why alarmists fear debating actual facts-the public finds out the REAL CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
@greenman3610 The only one who calls him any skeptic's "hero" is you. The only reason you try to label him as such is to smokescreen your dying cause of CAGW. You refuse to discuss facts anyone more. Perhaps we should discuss your hypocrite hero, Al Gore...
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65
His Weirdship is one of the greatest poster boys for nutso science denial we could have.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 So sorry to see you reduced to such a wreck that the only way you can defend CAGW is by ad hominem smokescreens. Sad.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65
I'm a wreck from laughing a Monckton and his clueless minions. We're trying to come up with ways to keep him center stage - that he's your hero speaks volumes about who you people are.
remember, wear protection.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 "So you believe he's cured aids?" Strawman, invalid argument. When it comes to climate change, he has his facts a LOT better than you do. End of story.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65
I know its like trying to cover for a crazy uncle that just pooped on the floor.
I'd be embarrassed as well if that was my hero.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 When it comes to facts, Monckton would chew you up and spit you out. Your vids are full of distortions, misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods; and you still refer people to them in these comment sections.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65
so you believe he's cured AIDS?
watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
you are a bit on the gullible side. Want my advice?
wear a condom.
greenman3610 1 month ago
What is wrong with lord Moncton's eye's. They look like they could drop from his head any second.
siprus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future, failing that the backup system is used which employs a china teacup and some old fashioned tea, not the baggy stuff and voila predictions that would have as much bearing on reality as a climatologist riding the train of plenty.
RandomVersion 2 months ago
Dude; if Lord Monckton became any more agitated his eyeballs would pop out and roll around the floor.
greiner3 2 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Lord Monckton has asked for a debate with Al Gore several times I think. How about if he debates Greenman... :-)
USAneedsaChange 3 months ago
@USAneedsaChange
please bring it.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 I wish I could help you with that, but I think you actually could arrange for it if you really tried! You have credibility via your YT-videos by now, and perhaps your job could help you understand what needs to be done(forgot your job). I am certain you would be respectable. A good respectable debate you vs him would be awesome!
I have a tiny FB-group, and that's about it :-) I have posted some of your vids there.
USAneedsaChange 2 months ago
Monckton is lying again. Go to Prof Abraham's vid presentation & u'll see he uses Monckton's own graphs, charts etc which all have large headlines stating things like 'arctic sea ice is increasing' or 'polar bears thrive in warm weather'. Then Abraham checks the Source that Monckton himself gives for these headlines and finds the Source does not agree. So Abraham emails the author to double check and sure enough Monckton has it all back to front. Monckton is a liar OR he is completely delusional
68spaceman 3 months ago
I didn't like interview with Monckton. Monckton's point was clear, scientists were lied about his presentation and he is supposedly going to file a charges against Prof. Abraham. This it self is huge. I would ask Monckton if he contacted scientist him self to set the record straight.
bookey80 4 months ago
@bookey80
well, I know Abraham - and no, Monckton has not sued him, and won't - because then he'd have to get real and actually prove something, which he can't. He would only be further unmasked as a blowhard grifter and snake oil salesman.
greenman3610 4 months ago 3
@greenman3610 My view of Monckton is same as yours, based on dozen of videos about Monckton. The problem is that Monckton is so persuading and people who watched only this one video, would most probably take Mockton's side.
bookey80 4 months ago
Monckton's right eye looks like it's about to pop out of his cartoonish head
CabalBoone 4 months ago
I can't believe I missed this gem, and it's been here for so many months.
wstevenschneider 4 months ago
now off you go
wildhias 4 months ago
looks like the kiwis aren't just better at union than us. if this is a true representation of kiwi media, then aussies are being dominated on two fronts (with the exception of the chaser team of course!)! great interview!
0mdwyer 4 months ago
booyakasha!
Nahasapasa 4 months ago
@heymanslowdown On greenman's latest vid, I point out 6 empirical scientific tests CAGW fails. You might look, unless you're afraid to find out that we're not "deluded."
smartalek65 4 months ago
You guys who agree with him have revealed how ignorant and deluded you really are lol
heymanslowdown 4 months ago
Sacha baron Cohen you muppets it's all a joke
heymanslowdown 4 months ago
@greenman3610 All joking aside, it's not I who's been drinking anybody's "kool-aid." And I don't buy snake oil, either. Applying empirical science, the notion that human greenhouse emissions are even as much as likely to cause a climate catastrophe is untenable. It's evident that Monckton, whatever his errors, is quite accurately reporting the science.
smartalek65 4 months ago
@greenmam3610 Nope. Doesn't fit in my fitness regimen.
smartalek65 4 months ago 2
@smartalek65
so you drink his kool aid, but not his snake oil?
greenman3610 4 months ago
@Rockstar969 You have no idea how you sound, do you? It's called ad hominem, compounded with another fallacy-going from a specific (and groundless) falsehood, to groundless generalities. I repeat what Monckton told the reporter: off with you.
smartalek65 4 months ago
@smartalek65
did you buy some of Monckon's jungle juice yet?
greenman3610 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want actual facts go to:
sciencedaily"DOT"com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
sciencenews"DOT"org/
scienceworld.wolfram"DOT"com/
noaa"DOT"gov/
nasa"DOT"gov
acoolerclimate"DOT"com/recent-global-warming-newspaper-articles-best-sources/
don't get caught up in the hype purposed by those who would profit from lies or deter you from the truth so they can serve their own purposes w/e they may be, all be it factually inaccurate , while never actually making a valid point.
Amatsuhira 5 months ago
His eyes are awesome.
squirreljester2 5 months ago
I wonder whether Monckton will still be refuting climate change in 2025-30 when all of the polar ice is gone.
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
Monckton has been sucking the tits of Big Oil that his eyes are about ready to pop out
MarkNobs 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
This is just hilarious. How do some people believe Monckton without their "crazy" detector going off?
BuckeyNuthouse17 5 months ago
Monckton looks crazier than ever. Lordly incest?
1425363878 5 months ago
@greenman3610 Yep. Had it analyzed, too. It's the same chemical composition as a glass of Guinness stout. Cheers!
smartalek65 5 months ago
@greenman3610 If anyone's ingested anything that makes them loco, it's not me. It's not me who attempts to silence those who disagree with pejoratives, slurs, and false psychoanalysis. It's not I who implies he knows better than his fellow man what's good for him. It's not I who mischaracterizes the motives of those who disagree with him. Someone should look at themselves, I already have.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
Ah hah, so you have been swigging the potion. (oops, for those not in on the joke..)
watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
greenman3610 5 months ago
@smartalek65 Monkton talks of FINANCIAL peer reviewed literature, the science of profit is being peer reviewed is it? Wankton is a bought man, a petrodollar whore who presents cherry picked info to low IQ judaeo christian republican fucktards, the rapacious beer guns and jesus fuck pigs of the planet, like you.
Rockster969 5 months ago 2
The only snake oil being sold is the notion that anthropogenic GHG's are going to cause a climate catastrophe. I'm not the one trying to sell that that pile of (expletive).
smartalek65 6 months ago
since you've already swallowed the biggest of monckton's pills, you'll be lining up for the other nostrums as well?
greenman3610 6 months ago 2
Had no idea Prof. Abraham was working on any such thing. At least THAT'S a competition he can beat Monckton at without resorting to low-life tactics.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
for myself, I'll leave the snake oil to you and monckton.
greenman3610 6 months ago 2
@greenman3610 You know Prof. Abraham? If he and Dr. Micheal Mann are your source of "facts," then I've found your problem.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
well, he hasn't cured AIDs yet, but he's working on it.
greenman3610 6 months ago
I don't come here to kill Monkton, but to pity him. He reminds me of Hitler the way he behaves. Especially the way he thinks. Although his words don't actually reflect rational thinking. Maybe his brain has been invaded by a parasite that has taken control. You'd be surprised just how common it is. Or else there has been some brain damage. I only hope he can recover. He is after all typically British. Looking.
listen2meokidoki 6 months ago
I Like the bit where he says Prof Abraham's is facing a libel charge, we all know that isn't going to happen, Monckton will never take it to court he knows he would make a fool of himself.
Tridhos 6 months ago
@Tridhos
I know John Abraham. I don't think he's losing any sleep.
greenman3610 6 months ago 2
his bulging eyes are actually characteristic of a person on the verge of or in a state of panic, probably the consequence of a genetic anomoloy involving monoamine oxidase acting on the balance of neurotransmitters. it's actually what makes people smart, but overactive in certain individual circumstances it can cause problems such as autism, or similar less extreme neurological conditions. this can mean an impaired cognitive condition, and compulsive beahaviour
kielrhys 6 months ago
@kielrhys Could such a condition be one of the sources of some of the stories in the 3 bibles? Thankfully we can assume that so few people will, in the end, or at the end of the day, continue to be alarmed and hysterical they will be as distracting as a couple (or maybe a hand full) of exploding human heads. If you don't see the head explode, I am sure you will not hear it. They don't make go off like a bomb, you know. But when they do they typically go off mid sentence.
listen2meokidoki 6 months ago
@kielrhys It's Grave's disease
n00blet 5 months ago
@n00blet wow, i had no idea it was an actually diagnosed condition. i'm amazed that piece of information isn't more widely understood
kielrhys 5 months ago
2:08 good lord im going to have nightmares
tobbems 6 months ago
@ash4432 Yes, they are. Victims of vicious smears.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 The only reason you call him "crazy" is that he effectively counters your propoganda.
smartalek65 6 months ago
Jesus Tapdancing Christ,
what's wrong with his face?
Dubickimus 6 months ago
Thoes eyes make me cringe but not as much as the vial shit pouring from his mouth
MoMember88 6 months ago 17
@MoMember88
scary thing is, he's getting crazier - and his audience doesn't seem to notice.
greenman3610 6 months ago 8
@greenman3610
"Cognitive impairment is common in hyperthyroidism and may present as one or more different syndromes. In one review of elderly patients with hyperthyroidism, dementia and confusion was found in 33 percent and 18 percent of patients, respectively"
Goolgle: Neurologic manifestations of hyperthyroidism and Graves' disease
BeondaPale 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Multiple comments on the numerous "errors" in the Great Global Warming Swindle: start at tinyurl*com/4xnfmbo
See also: tinyurl*com/2n6j3n
If you get your science understanding from this film, you're screwed.
Now, explain why CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas.
541iceman 6 months ago
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
@Galv140577
The swindle movie has, of course, become an embarrassment to
all those involved. Perhaps you did not get that memo.
But thanks for bringing the subject of one of my most popular ids:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 6 months ago 5
@541iceman As for humans manipulating climate, that's still debatable what role we play in recent climate change.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@541iceman Mitigation, in the CAGW climate sense, can only be done 2 ways: either sequestration, which requires the use staggeringly costly technologies; or through vastly reducing emissions, which would require shutting down cheaper sources of energy production and transportation to more costly and less productive technologies that, quite frankly, cost jobs as much as money.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@541iceman Actually, manipulation is what such types as Al Gore, James Hanson, Micheal Mann, and others (our host, Herr Grunmann, among them) are doing. When individuals like Monckton correct these alarms-even if he's not always right-he's PERSONALLY attacked. Most people realize that such ad hominems means he's right, because if he weren't the alarmists would only confront his facts. As I've pointed out with SLR, we've every reason to believe he has his facts straight there.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 then i guess the koch brothers and exxon are victoms in all of this.
ash4432 6 months ago
@541iceman As for "evidence" that adaptation beats mitigation, I'd say that it's the other way around-where's the evidence that mitigation's less expensive? Humans have adapted to changes for millenia. Look at New York. It'sbeen there more than 300 years, and sea level's been rising all that time.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 "They rightly resent being manipulated". But many of them don't recognize that that is what Monckton is doing.
541iceman 6 months ago
"mitigation vs adaptation" Over thousands of years, humans were not manipulating climate; that's a recent situation. People practice mitigation all the time, just not in climate so far. When the evidence is that life could be better tomorrow if we do something today, that's mitigation. Farmers rotating crops, parents having their kids immunized, countries forging alliances with others for future border stability, ... Mitigation can be the economically correct choice.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman Ah, we finally agree on something. However, I disagree on the public's alleged lack of ability to assess the issue. Alarmists in climate science, especially "science reporters," conducted individual campaigns (usually), like our host, to prevent any views other than "consensus" views from becoming known. The public at large may not totally grasp climate science, but they do understand and rightly resent being manipulated.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@541iceman Correcting a couple misrcharacterizations: 1) The public also deserves to know just how incomplete the "evidence" is, as well as how slim the chance is that any immediate change will occur, and the fact that this should theoretically be occuring and it isn't. Then there's the notion that skeptics advocate "doing nothing," when we actually advocate adjusting to climatic changes, as humanity has always done.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 We can agree on something: yes, the public has a right to know the quality of the evidence on which decisions are to be based. However, they don't and never will have the knowledge to assess this. So, they have to rely on expert opinion and, in fact, on "consensus" expert opinion, just like with public health issues, transport safety, security threats and so on.
You assume adaptation is cheaper than mitigation; but what's the evidence for that?
541iceman 6 months ago
Monckton is a reptilian if I've ever seen a repitilian :P
FriendsOfNone 6 months ago
CONT'D 2) If you wish to act as though that slim possibility were imminent, you are certainly free to do so. However, don't try FORCING others to accept that view and the staggeringly expensive measures it requires on others.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@541iceman 1) I never said anything about scientists or the IPCC fearmongering; I was clearly referring to those who, like Al Gore, James Hanson, and our host, who treat that slim POSSIBILITY as written-in-stone imminent event. The possibility, as noted in one of those papers I referenced, can only occur IF things happen almost immediately. As any geologist will tell you that nothing on this planet happens so quickly. CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 Geologists study rocks, not ice. So, their idea of "fast" is not the way to judge SLR. Instead, ask glaciologists. We have recent evidence that ice sheets *can* respond rapidly, through changed dynamic balances, to changes like surface water drainage and collapsed ice shelves. People should know that.
*Then* decide what to do about it. Don't decide on the "solution" (do nothing), then judge each piece of science by what fits your solution.
541iceman 6 months ago
Point being is that Monckton is correct concerning sea level rise, and the fear-mongering of the likes of Al Gore and James Hanson is unjustified. His next point concerned Polar Bears and their alleged "endangerment" from CAGW. In the 1970's, there were an estimated 5,000 polar bears worldwide; during this time of allegedly (according to alarmists) unprecedented temperature rise, polar bear numbers have increased 5-fold. Another alarm cancelled.
smartalek65 6 months ago
If you actually read the IPCC report and the peer-reviewed literature, the scientists aren't "fear mongering". They are quite clear about the SLR projections (best estimate 7-23" by 2100) but note that 1-2 m is possible given what we have recently learned about ice sheet dynamics and interactions with the ocean through ice shelf loss.
Given the choice between "there's absolutely nothing to worry about" (Monckton) and "insure against 1-2 m SLR", I prefer the latter.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman
that is what the US Navy is doing
/watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY
greenman3610 6 months ago
Since you wish to try dragging this out indefinitely, I'll finish with a point that you've failed to refute or acknowledge: that we're allegedly seeing increasing ice mass loss, yet SLR isn't accelerating EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE. Accelerating SLR is a fear based on what deeply flawed computer models say MIGHT happen, and doesn't match reality. Period.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 1) Well, science is about everyone getting to the same understanding. Sometimes it takes a long time. You seem to expect me to agree to your cherry-picks because you're fluent in citations. But when you cite people apparently saying what they don't say when I see them at meetings, I really feel obliged to read the actual papers again.
541iceman 6 months ago
@smartalek65 2) The SLR/ice issue is: *present* rates of Greenland mass loss (measured from GRACE) is much smaller in SLR terms than other terms (thermal expansion + temperature glaciers). Exactly as 2007 IPCC says. A major contribution from Greenland by 2100 requires much greater loss rates than present; GRACE sees the acceleration but not to the point (yet) where it matters (to SLR). Again, see IPCC.
i.e., not presently bad, but could be.
541iceman 6 months ago
John Abraham completely demolished Monckton's arguments. Vids are on YouTube. It's embarrassing to see Monckton's rebuttal which is essentially parroting the same lines over again. The sad part is that the kook is allowed to stand on any platform and air his nonsense.
drxym 6 months ago
@drxym
when you realize his audience still believes Obama was born in Kenya, you understand why.
greenman3610 6 months ago 11
@drxym Then he had to retract several of his most "devestating" claims, on orders from the University-fears of libel.
smartalek65 6 months ago
Potholer54 did an excellent slash and burn on Monckton. Monckton's a fraud and Potholer proves it.
warren52nz 6 months ago
Wendt et al. (2009) is a report from observations at a single point.
You seem reluctant to address the results from GRACE.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman That's because every respectable scientific study I've seen concerning GRACE acknowledges (in the early ones, like Remillien et al.) or highlights the severe difficulties concerning its use, like post-glacial rebound sensitivity of GRACE. Pfeffer et al. (Science 321: 1340-1343, 2008) report that sea level rise above 2 meters by 2100 is physically impossible, and to rise to 2 meters would require QUICKLY accelerating SLR, which isn't happening (although if the CAGW hypothesis CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
CONT'D is correct, it should ALREADY be happening, being as our current climate is allegedly warmer than any in the past 2 millenia). Wendt et al's report, albeit from a single station, is a direct measurement that underscores the problems with satellite altimetry (like GRACE uses), and reports that the GAINS in ice at that station is 50% higher than what the altimetry shows there. Tedesco and Monaghan also report such things as ice melt being lower than at any time during satellite observation.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
Elevation is not the same as ice mass. One station does *not* tell you very much. GRACE does *not* use altimetry; it measures gravity changes. PGR (GIA) models are being improved. Regardless, the trend in Greenland and West Antarctic ice loss is towards more rapid rates.
Models predict (and the IPCC assumes) that the cold "core" of Antarctica will receive higher precip in a warmer world. This is one reason why their 2007 assessment was for zero mass loss from Antarctica.
541iceman 6 months ago
@smartalek65 From Tedesco and Monaghan (2009): "Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends."
Let's hope the ozone hole doesn't recover, eh?
541iceman 6 months ago
2) If climate warms, Frauenfeld et al. would predict higher melt. Most climate scientists say that climate will warm long-term due to CO2 increases.
Tesdeco and Monahan discuss snow melt, not mass loss by dynamics (glaciers and ice streams flowing faster into the sea).
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman Then answer the point raised. Is Monckton correct (i.e. that alarm is unjustified based on current science), or is our host (that if we don't take drastic steps he advocates, we're in for a sea level rise that will be catastrophic for human civilization). s
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 Recent studies of ice-sheet response to ocean temperature and circulation, and to drainage of surface water to the ice-sheet base, indicate that ice sheets can respond very rapidly to climate change.
GRACE confirms acceleration of mass loss from Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets since 2002.
Based on these observations and studies, an SLR of 0.5-1.5 m by 2100 is very possible. Anything about 1 m and up will be catastrophic for some societies.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman Let's see, Wendt et al (Antarctic Science 21, 505-513, 2009) found that local measurements showed positive gains, whereas the satellite altimetry showed little trend either way in Antarctica. Tedesco & Monaghan (GRL 36, L18502, 2009; and updated in Eos 91, 1-2, 2010) found negligible ice melt in Antarctica overall. Nick et al (Nature Geoscience 2, 110-114, 2009) cautioned that "our results imply that recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
CONT'D and should not be extrapolated into the future." Fraunfeld et al (JGR 116, D08104, 2011) also demonstrate why SLR contributions are "likely to be modest." Like I said, alarms are unwarranted based on science. Monckton is correct there.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
1) Frauenfeld et al. (2011) don't "demonstrate why {Greenland} SLR contributions are likely to be modest." They point out that, based on *present era* warm temperatures, which are comparable to the ~1930 maximum, the Greenland contribution to total SLR is small. That is, as I've said many times, Greenland contribution to SLR is presently less than steric effects, and consistent with the 2007 IPCC report.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman No, I'm just refusing to accept the attempt to frame the discussion. I began by testing Monckton, first by the point on SLR. Alarmists tell us to fear it, and base this upon scientists' "concerns" and usually invoke a "consensus." Skeptics, like Monckton, say these alarms are vastly overblown, using projections that are based on fear, not real observations. The literature is strewn with observations that disagree with the catastrophic expectation.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 I'm not "framing the discussion"; I'm saying that SLR is an interesting and important thing to study. The verdict is still out on how SLR changed during the 20th century.
Every study has flaws caused by the need to deal with limited (in space and time) data, and methods used to create SLR global values from insufficient data. It's clear that sea level rose, and that decadal fluctuations are large. The rest (acceleration, spatial differences) is still open for study.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman 1) Correction, SOME expect that to change. Others do not.2) Actually, yes there are those who sound the alarm, like our host. Until recently, when the trend slowed, our host on these vids used the satellite altimetry to "prove" CAGW was coming to pass. When the IPCC reported those projections, Rahmstorf (among other scientists) publicly complained they were "too low."
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 It's as though you can't read what I'm writing. No-one in peer-review says that changes in SLR during the 20th century (mostly steric) are cause for alarm, and the 2007 IPCC summarized that ("7=23 inches by 2100"). Rahmstorf and others are concerned about 21st century trends, driven by ice-sheet mass loss. He is also critical of methodologies of other scientists analyzing 20th century data, but that's just the way science goes.
541iceman 6 months ago
@smartalek65 At the start of the 21st century, steric changes still dominate. The concern comes from GRACE observations of accelerating (over just one decade) ice sheet mass loss, and rapid improvements in our understanding of dynamic loss of land ice due to lost ice shelves and water drainage to the ice sheet base. That concern is not a consensus at this time, but it's a reasonable concern.
541iceman 6 months ago
@Shinimegami86 I Agree Snow in winter is hardly a shocking event and does not prove Global Warming.
Does Snow in the Southern Hemisphere prove Global Warming ?
MrMick73 6 months ago
Bug eyed monster? Maybe, his views are monstrously wrong and he is... well .... bug eyed.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 6 months ago
Monckton does not have a problem with peer review science, but has discussed (from my memory) how it can be corrupted. The pre-concluded dip-shit who interviewed him never let him explain himself.
andrewada 6 months ago
Why do they keep calling the batshit crazy lunatic "Lord?" And why do they call him a "skeptic?" Neither are true.
Desertphile 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4) However, until the physical mechanisms linking warming atmosphere, ocean circulation, sea ice, ice shelves and ice sheets are better understood, predicted SLR will be just a rough guess. The next IPCC report will probably give a larger range than the 2007 one, but the "best guess" probably won't change much.
541iceman 6 months ago
Oh, that's Lord Christopher Mountebank.
RyuDarragh 6 months ago
Potholer54 did an excellent 4 part series on Monckton detailing exactly what Monckton got wrong (SPOILER: virtually everything):
Starts here:
watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8
warren52nz 6 months ago
You know, you can play games with who said what, but it really does boil down to that central question. "Does a smudge of extra CO2 come with a positive or negative feedback, or just neutral"? We now know it is negative or neutral because the greenhouse effect has been measured with satellite data. The data is in. We have tested the models and they were wrong. Problematic AGW is a mistake. Is does not exist.
andrewada 6 months ago
@andrewada You're not talking about Spencer and Braswell (2011), are you? Even Spencer says (on his web site) that he doesn't think his latest study disproves AGW.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman However, he also says that AGW is far from proven to be any serious problem. Feedback factors have loooong been shown to be overall negative (that is, that the empirically determined increase in temperature from doubling of co2 of 1.1 degrees is reduced to about half that). Karner (Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, D20 (2002)) was among the first to show this, and it's continued through various papers through the years.
smartalek65 6 months ago
Thats Amazing , New Zealand is having a massive SNOW Storm covering the north island . Damn that Global Warming Snow !
MrMick73 6 months ago
@MrMick73 One of the things global climate models project is an increased chance of extreme weather events.Record numbers of tornadoes in the USA, droughts in Russia, Africa, unprecedented flooding in Pakistan being other recent examples. Also the heatwave in the USA.
widebody123 6 months ago
@widebody123 This Unprecedented extreme weather , is it for the last 50 years ; 100 years , 10 Million years ?
It would be a sad test of science that any form of weather, too hot , too cold , too sunny, too wet ,cloudy, windy, would be proof that c02 causes Weather conditions. I do see how you can easily say c02 casues anything you feel like. You probably believe in God ! When you finish arguing with me about nonsense ask me what the real motive for c02 is.
MrMick73 6 months ago
@MrMick73 How in the world can CO2 have a motive? You see I too can twist words and misquote.
widebody123 6 months ago 2
@widebody123 We both know Co2 has no motive however, the Governments of the World that are co-ordinating efforts to Tax you for its use have a motive. That motive would be in the Australian Federal Government Documents outling c02 emissions and PEAK OIL.
MrMick73 6 months ago
@widebody123 Are all weather events sypmtoms of Global Warming ?
Is Snow a symptom of Global Warming ?
MrMick73 6 months ago
@MrMick73 Im pretty sure December, Jnuary and February are the hottest months and the present ones are some of the coldest in the southern hemisphere. Damn that lack of scientific understanding!
jonsonmcfarlin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lord Monckton is NOT a member of the house of lords. The clerk of the parliaments, David Beamish, made a point of making this clear on the UK parliament website, asking him to desist claiming it directly or by implication. He is a blatant charlatan (most entertaining though).
widebody123 6 months ago
His "bug eyes" are from Grave's Disease. There was an interesting indy documentary on him. After watching it, I wonder if his 25+ years of being sick turned him into the bitter, nihlistic knucklehead that he is. He sure has an elaborate booze collection back at his crib, btw.
nickschor1 6 months ago
WTF is wrong with that guy's head?!
really i don't like to make fun of people but i think that guy is retarded, really. look at those derp eyes. i am all for the disabled working, but this is just fucking nutty.
yellowdart137 6 months ago
Lol the green movement has, Al Gore, Obama, NASA, NOAA, and every National Academy of Science, and the climate skeptics have Monkton... haha i'm fine with that. I think we're winning ;)
mattt1994 6 months ago
CONT'D Houston and Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 27: 3, 409-417, 2011) is the latest, and they find no evidence of accelerating sea level rise required by the catastrophic AGW scenario. Cancel the alarm on this one.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 Before you get excited by Houston and Dean, read the critique Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 in the same journal. See tinyurl*com/5w6q2fj.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman You do realize that Houston and Dean tore R & D's "critique" to shreds in their rebuttal, right?
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 "tore to shreds". No, they simply got the last published word. For a quick online extra rebuttal, see tinyurl*com/65bnfcy. The H&D rebuttal to R&V fails to address some of the comments by R&V, cites a seriously flawed paper (Watson 2011) as support, keeps the cherry-picking of starting in 1930,...
I don't have a problem with this; it's the way science is supposed to operate. What's wrong is jumping on every new paper and claiming it is a silver bullet for one "side" or the other.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman Wrong-o. Tore to shreds. Vermeer & Rahmstorf failed to adress the main point H & D made: that the data doesn't support the catastrophic scenario; not to mention the cherry-picking V & R use as the only way to make their own method work.
If you read the comment that I made, you would see that I did no such thing as you're accusing me of. I only cited H & D as the latest in a long line of papers that show no catastrophe from accelerating sea level rise is imminent.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply stated that there's a tendency, *on both sides*, to claim a single publication as the end of the debate.
That being said, an imperfect analysis of North American sea level acceleration since 1930 doesn't tell you a whole lot about *future* global sea level rise. Especially as 20th century rise was mostly thermal expansion, vs ice loss from Greenland and W. Antarctica.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman You appear to have ignored the point again. What I said was that H & D is but one in a loooong string of papers (Holgate, Woppelmann et al, Wenzel & Schroter, to name some recent research) that demonstrate that sea level rise is NOT accelerating, let alone anything near the rate called for in the catastrophic scenarios.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 1) I am not ignoring anything: it's an interesting topic. The most detailed *global* analysis of acceleration (based on data) I know of is Church and White (2006; GRL). They show higher SLR after about 1930 than before, although with lots of decadal variation.
Since most rise to date has been steric (warming), it is not surprising that it is not showing the acceleration you'd get from ice-sheet mass loss, which is not (yet) large.
541iceman 6 months ago
@smartalek65 2) The Wenzel and Schroter I see is JPO 2007: they get 3.4 mm/year for a model run for one decade (1993-2003), but their model is constrained by satellite altimeter data. About 2/3 is steric, 1/3 is mass. This (recent) value is greater than the 20th century average, therefore you could say that SLR is accelerating. However, as Church and White show, the decadal changes in SLR rate are large.
541iceman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smartalek65 3) So, I would agree that we are not presently seeing acceleration to a catastrophic SLR rate. That explains why the IPCC said "7-24 inches by 2100, excluding dynamic changes in ice sheets".
But, nor are we seeing deceleration, except regionally or by cherry-picking the analysis time interval. Given recent measured acceleration of mass loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, *if* those accelerations continue, mass contribution to SLR will overtake steric effects quite soon.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman Unless you count Holgate, who pointed out that (on average) SLR was faster in the FIRST half of the 20th century. Basically, the SLR has continually come in at the extreme lower ends of the IPCC projections. Sorry, but that's what the data says, and there's nothing that points to accelerating sea level rise. Point to the skeptics.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
1) Mainstream scientists agree that present and 20th century SLR trends are small; hence the 2007 IPCC projection (7-23" by 2100). Based on ice-sheet dynamics (*not* 20th century sea level data), they think that will change. But interdecadal variability in SLR rate is large, so how will we know when we're seeing a genuine trend?
541iceman 6 months ago
@smartalek65
2) So, there's a potentially important scientific study to do and a debate to be had. I see that as a good thing; you see it as points to be scored: why the attitude?
I'm not aware of anyone who says that 20th century trend in SLR is cause for alarm; as you point out, it's not even clear that there *is* a trend. It's the presently short-term (9 year) trend in Greenland and West Antarctic mass loss from GRACE that worries SLR people.
541iceman 6 months ago
@kellygiz Actually, practically all skeptics have. It's been discredited by economists.
smartalek65 6 months ago
Seems Monckton has not heard of the Stern report...
kellygiz 6 months ago
Maybe we should test what Monckton says against the scientific literature and data. He says that sea level rise isn't accelerating the way alarmists projections say. He's correct. Tide gauge research, such as Woppelman, shows a sea level rise of about 1.8 millimeters per year in the 20th century, which is about 7 INCHES for that century. Similar research shows no acceleration of that rate. CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
Wow, Monckton is a massive twat at the end there.
nonameisacat 6 months ago
I had to look it up and yeah, he does have a medical condition concerning his eyes. Something called exophthalmos.
Vellwander 6 months ago
The man needs to be checked for Grave's disease for which popped out peepers is a symptom.
Pyrolonn 6 months ago
@Pyrolonn Yes, it's Graves disease. He claims to have cured himself, but then he claims to have a cure for cancer and AIDS too, so I'd take that with a metric shit-ton of salt.
Clever man, but sadly he's also mad as a box of frogs.
radio4fan 6 months ago
This is why we can't have nice things...
KriegKadaver 6 months ago
It's a tarp!
Kirkevold 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD How would anyone know that? It was the evidence that convinced me. You see, 10 years ago, I was one of you who believed in an imminent crisis. The evidence says otherwise.
smartalek65 6 months ago
In fact, he actually answered Prof. Abraham's criticism here on YouTube.
smartalek65 6 months ago
Call him what you wish, he's largely correct concerning catastrophic global warming.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65 says who? I am convinced that people dont want to believe in AGW because it is inconvenient, and means they have to change behaviour.
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
Monckton is NOT a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments made a point of making this clear on the UK parliament website. He is a charlatan (although most entertaining).
widebody123 6 months ago
data speaks louder than vocal cords vibrating
twistedbass15 6 months ago
So did you go see him speak or did you have a pre-conceived notion?
pheonixrising789 6 months ago
This guy is a twat.
TheArkasis 6 months ago
On one hand, if I had a hostile reporter trying to shove words and statements into my mouth, I would be extremely annoyed and would have probably ended the interview at the same point (So the media could paint me the same as Monckton).
On the Other hand, If I'd just said that 'Peer review' was stupid, dirted the name of scientists and generally shat all over the scientific method....
Well. Fuck.
Lollocide 6 months ago
Only a couple dozen have published about global warming? Come again fish face?
TheFluffyDuck 6 months ago 2
@Anthorlols I think he has graves disease. The great Marty Feldman of Young Frankenstein fame also had it.
residentmonger 6 months ago
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is NOT a member of the house of lords. Check out the UK parliament website if you don't believe me. The clerk of the parliaments made a point of publishing a letter asking him to desist from making such claims.
widebody123 6 months ago
I try not to hate anyone, but Monckton really pushes my buttons. I want to hate him so bad.
apopheniacMCMLXXXIX 6 months ago
Lord Monckton needs to stay on the world stage. He needs to remain a prominate figure that is heard.
If you want a man to counter the worlds accumulated scientific knowledge of climate, this is our man. That freaky looking whack pile of nuts is harming the global warming skeptic cause everytime those black moor lips pa