Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's the top-drawer English media whore. Not the only one, of course, but one of the latest of a long line.

Potholer's a middle class hero...
 
Feel free to start an "Al Gore Debunked" thread. He's not been 100% accurate, but his basic science is sound.
Not that bad an idea. He irritated me, can't remember what about exactly. It would be good to clear away some misconceptions.
 
The fact that he said the core of the earth was several million degrees ?

I don't think the fact that he mistakenly said "million" instead of "thousand" on a late night talk show is an indication of anything.

Find something that he repeatedly claims to be, that is actually false.
 
He could have confused that with the temperature at the center of the Sun.

It is generally understood that the temperature at the center of the Earth is similar to that of the surface of the Sun.
Al Gore has done more to hurt the global warming movement then helped . As in the top video response to Oxy with him it was all about making tons of money at the expense of the poor and middle class Americans Carbon tax . I dont how a carbon tax will do any thing other then lining someone else s pocket on more green energy scams as in Spain which should be a perfect example of how to destroy your economy . He is a politician and most of his wealth is from oil . he sells his network to a oil nation . Al Gore is a hypocrite and a Liar .
 
I don't think the fact that he mistakenly said "million" instead of "thousand" on a late night talk show is an indication of anything.

Find something that he repeatedly claims to be, that is actually false.

Proving global warming and proving humans were causing it was an impossibility. Ever notice how the theory of global warming and the causal role of humans never found its way into a U.S. courtroom? A UK court found Al Gore’s pseudoscience video “An Inconvenient Truth” was so riddled with scientific falsehoods that the judge ruled the film could only be shown in UK schools “if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.”
Content from External Source
http://illuminutti.com/about/ :)
 
Seems they cannot carry the hoax on much longer, emperors new clothes.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
Content from External Source



 
Last edited by a moderator:
The figure you copy/paste says:

...and this heavy black line is the official world average temperature - which is about to crash out of them both

That's a bold unsubstantiated claim.
 
Furthermore, reading the article gives a strong impression that Rose is cherry picking and quote mining.

People that have already analyzed his opinion piece in the telegraph have found just that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-rose-hides-rise-global-warming.html

Rose gathers some quotes from the few contrarian climate scientists who disagree with the 97% consensus that humans are causing global warming. Among these are Judith Curry and David Whitehouse, the latter being associated with the climate contrarian lobby group Global Warming Policy Foundation. Whitehouse is not a climate scientist.Rose quotes Oxford's Myles Allen saying that the odds of catastrophic 5°C surface warming this century have come down, but that's a far, far cry from saying the planet isn't warming or that we shouldn't be worried about it, as Allen has explained in a response on The Guardian.
Content from External Source
The article does its position no favors by repeating debunked myths

[h=3]Long-Debunked Myths Thrown in for Good Measure[/h]The second half of the article is ambiguous in that it appears to be written by — or is in the words of — David Bellamy, the botanist and former televison presenter. Here Bellamy is given a platform to complain he was kicked off TV due to his views on climate change, which contradicts a previous admisssion that his departure was because of his political activities. However, leaving that aside, with Bellamy's input we end with a Gish Gallop of hackneyed climate myths. We'll not go into a detailed debunking in this post, but for the sake of thoroughness:
  • the claim that CO2 lags behind temperature changes is debunked here;

  • the myth that the sun is causing global warming is debunked here;

  • the myth that climate scientists were all predicting an impending ice age in the 1970s is debunked here;

  • the myth that humans aren't causing global warming is debunked here; and

  • the myth that renewable energy is too expensive is debunked here.
Content from External Source
 
Furthermore, reading the article gives a strong impression that Rose is cherry picking and quote mining.

People that have already analyzed his opinion piece in the telegraph have found just that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-rose-hides-rise-global-warming.html

It really pains me to say it, but that was some Gish Gallop you just posted.

Can you please explain, in simple terms why the world getting warmer or even colder is attributable to mankind and if so how did we manage to create and defrost a couple of ice ages. If our ancestors were advanced enough back in the day to do that, why should we worry... we are even cleverer are we not?
 
It really pains me to say it, but that was some Gish Gallop you just posted.
The Gish had galloped before the stable door had been closed.

Can you please explain, in simple terms why the world getting warmer or even colder is attributable to mankind and if so how did we manage to create and defrost a couple of ice ages. If our ancestors were advanced enough back in the day to do that, why should we worry... we are even cleverer are we not?
CO2 added to earth's atmosphere makes it warmer. It's a logarithmic function, in that each increment has slightly less warming effect, but the fact is that we're DOUBLING the CO2 added to our atmosphere every 32 years, simply due to the fact we are doubling our demand for energy at the same rate. The increase has been logged continuously since the mid-fifties. There hasn't been an equivalent increase in the Sun's energy, in fact clean air acts have actually allowed a greater insolation in the last decade, while there has been no apparent heating. But while there has been no apparent heating, icecap ice everywhere has accelerated its melting. If you haven't blinkered yourself you can see the earth is heating up.

Ice ages occur, in the absence of other influences, when the earth's leisurely Malenkovich orbital cycles reduce solar insolation to its minimum. But there are other influences, both continental drift and vulcanism having been profoundly powerful in the past, breaking the cycles.

Forty years ago there were 35 papers predicting global warming and six predicting an ice age. They were all correct. The global warming is happening right now, and the next Ice Age would have been going to arrive 17,800 years from now had we not lit the coal fires.

Carbon isotope studies confirm a rising proportion of burnt fossil fuel carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere.

Our ancestors had NO control over the earth's weather. We do. We aren't cleverer (what made you believe that? Do you think we're evolving more intelligence?), but some of us are clever enough to know what has to be done. We must

STOP BURNING FOSSIL CARBON.

Are we clever enough to do that, d'you think?
 
He's the top-drawer English media whore. Not the only one, of course, but one of the latest of a long line.

Potholer's a middle class hero...

I love Potholer's videos, I started subscribing to him a couple of years ago when he first invented the magnificent Golden Crocoduck award. It's the likes of him that make youtube worth visiting.
 
"The global warmists used to say humans were causing global warming. But they have re-engineered their wording. Now they say humans “contribute” to “climate change.”"

If I'm not mistaken, the fact that we've only recently begun to use the phrase 'global warming' until recently has been well and truly debunked, by Mick (I think), who linked to its use in the 1970s.

However, it's not a surprise that so many people are still in climate change denial (even though scientific consensus is around 97%!!!) when so much money has been pumped into it by the likes of Koch and Big Oil.

http://www.livescience.com/26618-climate-change-denial-koch-donors-trust.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc160213.htm
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

Actually, Oxymoron, I'm surprised you're not bothered by all the secretive funding of climate denial by major industrial contributors to the problem. This IS a conspiracy!
 
It really pains me to say it, but that was some Gish Gallop you just posted.

Addressing the myriad of mistakes in a Gish Gallop such as in the article that you linked constitutes a Gish Gallop?



Can you please explain, in simple terms why the world getting warmer or even colder is attributable to mankind and if so how did we manage to create and defrost a couple of ice ages.

There are numerous things that drive climate. The one of many that is changing now is the composition of the atmosphere. The others such as orbital variations, solar intensity, etc..., the factors that drove climate before the industrial age, are not changing in such a way as to cause the current observed trend.

This claim that climate changing in the past without human influence means that humans can't be changing the climate now is an old canard. Fortunately somebody has already written an answer that I find sufficient.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.
Content from External Source
 
Actually, Oxymoron, I'm surprised you're not bothered by all the secretive funding of climate denial by major industrial contributors to the problem. This IS a conspiracy!

Secretive funding from any source for anything concerns me as it is open to abuse and agenda. I say 'lets have transparency', but then that's just how I am.

Obviously the cleaner the energy and the cheaper the energy, the better. I like geothermal energy and most people do not 'want' pollution. I also like the idea of tidal energy.

https://www.gov.uk/wave-and-tidal-energy-part-of-the-uks-energy-mix

Alternative energy seems to have been largely suppressed.

I can never understand why people are so surprised when their house, built on a flood plain, gets flooded or when a nuclear reactor built on a geological fault line gets hit by a tsunami and earthquake.
 
Addressing the myriad of mistakes in a Gish Gallop such as in the article that you linked constitutes a Gish Gallop?





There are numerous things that drive climate. The one of many that is changing now is the composition of the atmosphere. The others such as orbital variations, solar intensity, etc..., the factors that drove climate before the industrial age, are not changing in such a way as to cause the current observed trend.

This claim that climate changing in the past without human influence means that humans can't be changing the climate now is an old canard. Fortunately somebody has already written an answer that I find sufficient.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.
Content from External Source

These 'forcings' play a far larger role than anything man has done IMO. Look at the North Sea oil... Heavily forested only around 80,000 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Continental drift, Huge volcanic eruptions dwarfing anything we have put out. That and the Solar activity levels.

Animals have been farting for millenia and vegetation has been rotting and giving off methane also.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating pollution, far from it, I simply think man has not made any significant difference to 'climate change'.
 
Secretive funding from any source for anything concerns me as it is open to abuse and agenda. I say 'lets have transparency', but then that's just how I am.

Obviously the cleaner the energy and the cheaper the energy, the better. I like geothermal energy and most people do not 'want' pollution. I also like the idea of tidal energy.

https://www.gov.uk/wave-and-tidal-energy-part-of-the-uks-energy-mix

Alternative energy seems to have been largely suppressed.

Largely suppressed? Like what, for example? There seems to be quite a lot of solar and wind power projects. It's mostly economics.
 
These 'forcings' play a far larger role than anything man has done IMO. Look at the North Sea oil... Heavily forested only around 80,000 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Continental drift, Huge volcanic eruptions dwarfing anything we have put out. That and the Solar activity levels.

Animals have been farting for millenia and vegetation has been rotting and giving off methane also.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating pollution, far from it, I simply think man has not made any significant difference to 'climate change'.

Most scientists disagree with you. Especially those who study that type of thing:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.
Content from External Source
And every other major body of scientists agrees.
 
Largely suppressed? Like what, for example? There seems to be quite a lot of solar and wind power projects. It's mostly economics.

It cannot be economics because solar and wind are incredibly expensive. Hugely expensive but little impact on oil interests :)

I think water as a fuel has been suppressed. Hydrogen, Oxygen... I think we have the technology and have had for a long time.
 
It cannot be economics because solar and wind are incredibly expensive. Hugely expensive but little impact on oil interests :)

Thats the point...if solar/wind/geothermal etc.. were less expensive it would be even more common.

I am sure oil companies would be happy to make money with other methods of energy production if it were economically feasible and profitable.
 
Most scientists disagree with you. Especially those who study that type of thing:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.
Content from External Source
And every other major body of scientists agrees.

Yes that is one side of the debate but how do we know the 'climate change' would not be happening anyway.

Again the North Sea... huge land mass... lost... where were all the climatologists then screaming "kill the animals to stop them farting and put that fire out, don't you see the waters taking over the land"

All the carbon now locked up in the oil etc was freely abundant then and life went on.
 
Thats the point...if solar/wind/geothermal etc.. were less expensive it would be even more common.

I am sure oil companies would be happy to make money with other methods of energy production if it were economically feasible and profitable.

I am not so sure. They are heavily invested and entrenched. Do they really want to give up that power and income stream voluntarily.

The Emirates are diversifying because they know it will eventually run out but whilst the cow gives milk, they will milk it. Human nature unfortunately.
 
I think water as a fuel has been suppressed. Hydrogen, Oxygen... I think we have the technology and have had for a long time.

That's pure wishful thinking I'm afraid. Water is the product of combustion. You can't un-burn something. It's a simple equation:

H2 + O = H2O + heat energy

To split the H2O into H and O, you need to put back in the energy you took out.
 
I think water as a fuel has been suppressed. Hydrogen, Oxygen... I think we have the technology and have had for a long time.
Oxy, your heart's in the right place but your head must have been out to lunch during science classes.

Hydrogen burns in oxygen. Energy is liberated by that combustion, and it's wonderful. The best rocketry uses it to LIFT, and so does the human body (in little steps) to POWER its internal processes and muscular actions.

But once used, it cannot be used again, except by using slightly more energy* to separate the oxygen and hydrogen, for re-use. There is no free lunch. Don't even dream of it.

* There's no such thing as 100% efficiency, this side of the quantum barrier, either, Mick. :rolleyes:
 
Largely suppressed? Like what, for example? There seems to be quite a lot of solar and wind power projects. It's mostly economics.

Fossil fuel subsidies have increased massivly in the last few years - over $500 billion worldwide in 2011 for fossil fuels - an increase of 20% from 2010!

vs a "mere" $88 billion for "renewables"

Most of the fossil fuel subsidy is low prices for consumers in states that produce the oil - meaning the rest of us are paying so they get cheap oil and gas - it's not actually the oil companies doing it!
 
Yes that is one side of the debate but how do we know the 'climate change' would not be happening anyway.
It is almost as if you have your fingers in your ears.

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.
Content from External Source
Again the North Sea... huge land mass... lost... where were all the climatologists then screaming "kill the animals to stop them farting and put that fire out, don't you see the waters taking over the land". All the carbon now locked up in the oil etc was freely abundant then and life went on.
So it did, but Life was lived almost exclusively in the sea, which was three hundred and fifty feet higher than it presently is. For ammonites, life was GREAT.

It may have been possible to "live" at the poles, but at the time there was no land there anyway, and no land animals to live it. The exposed land was Saharan in nature.

It is a very bad idea* to return all of that fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The "other side" of this "debate" is a grinning skull.

* Truly Faustian. We can out-do another famous myth if we wish, collectively. Could be a boost for space travel. Look on the bright side... ...there's a whole universe to ruin.
 
Oxy, your heart's in the right place but your head must have been out to lunch during science classes.

Hydrogen burns in oxygen. Energy is liberated by that combustion, and it's wonderful. The best rocketry uses it to LIFT, and so does the human body (in little steps) to POWER its internal processes and muscular actions.

But once used, it cannot be used again, except by using slightly more energy* to separate the oxygen and hydrogen, for re-use. There is no free lunch. Don't even dream of it.

* There's no such thing as 100% efficiency, this side of the quantum barrier, either, Mick. :rolleyes:

Yes that is the accepted version. I am merely opining, I think it is likely possible but not public.

When you start looking at string theory and how at the minutest level every last thing in the Universe is made up of the same building blocks or 'strings', where 'simply' how it is vibrating at different frequencies defines it's characteristics, the possibilities become endless.
 
I live in Texas home of BIG oil, and yet, we have Green Mountain Energy

Products

Green Mountain Energy’s flagship residential electricity product is Pollution FreeTM electricity, made from 100% renewable sources.

In May 2009 Green Mountain Energy launched the Renewable Rewards® Buy-Back program, which credits customers with renewable generation facilities on their homes for excess energy their facility sends back to the electric grid.[12]

In April 2011 Green Mountain Energy announced Pollution FreeTM EV, a 100% wind electricity product exclusively for electric vehicle owners. This product can be used in conjunction with NRG Energy’s eVgo program for unlimited EV charging.[13]

In April 2011 the company also launched a solar leasing program for residential solar panels.[14]

Green Mountain Energy also offers renewable energy certificates (RECs) and carbon offset products to individuals nationwide.
Content from External Source




http://www.greenmountain.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top