Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

Status
Not open for further replies.
How did the sulfur oxides get into the stratosphere?
By the oxidative action of sunlight, moisture, and atmospheric oxygen on gaseous sulfides emitted by land-based anaerobic bacteria and ocean micro-organisms.
By vulcanism.
By industrial chemical effluent.
By burning fossil fuels.

Oxy said:
Puts this in perspective a bit <snip> there are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast.
Or how are we to avoid losing a zero-sum game:

[video=youtube_share;yFq8Rak0oSo]http://youtu.be/yFq8Rak0oSo[/video]

We'll be converting coal into diesel and be burning that. All diesel should be desulfurized, but not if the byproduct effluent is carbon dioxide. Tankers are big enough to be able to desulfurize their exhausts. Nuclear power stations have to built, not to grow the economy, but just to maintain it.

We waste a lot of energy and effort by our societal failure to deal with facts. It's an inclusive we. But it's also early days. "Can do"? Maybe.
 
It's still getting warmer though, just not quite as fast as they thought, at least right now.

Well not with any statistical significance, at the generally accepted sigma 2 level (95%) since 1997 till now, or for the last 23 years if you go by the satellite record, which is less prone to being distorted by local influences, such as UHI etc.
 
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 monotonous whispering tone makes Potholer's presentations tedious to follow at best.
 
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning on every continent except Antarctica. Anupma Prakash, a University of Alaska at Fairbanks geologist who maps the fires, calls them "a worldwide catastrophe with no geographic territory, and if we don't take care of them they're going to take a toll on us." The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China, where underground fires are consuming at least 10 million tons of coal annually — and some estimates multiply that amount twentyfold. In India, 68 fires are burning beneath a 58-square-mile region of the Jhairia coalfield near Dhanbad, showering residents in airborne toxins. "Go there and within 24 hours you're spitting out mucous with coal particles," Prakash says. "It's bad, worse than any city, anywhere."
Content from External Source
 
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning on every continent except Antarctica. Anupma Prakash, a University of Alaska at Fairbanks geologist who maps the fires, calls them "a worldwide catastrophe with no geographic territory, and if we don't take care of them they're going to take a toll on us." The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China, where underground fires are consuming at least 10 million tons of coal annually — and some estimates multiply that amount twentyfold. In India, 68 fires are burning beneath a 58-square-mile region of the Jhairia coalfield near Dhanbad, showering residents in airborne toxins. "Go there and within 24 hours you're spitting out mucous with coal particles," Prakash says. "It's bad, worse than any city, anywhere."
Content from External Source
 
"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!
Please watch this video at 1:06:40 as it debunks the statement: '(even though scientific consensus is around 97%!!!)'. I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting.
 
But it kinda is dependent on getting many similar repeated results - consensus. What do you think science is ruled by? Mavericks bucking the trend?
 
I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting.

It isn't. The only ones who claim it is are being intellectually dishonest. Science, by its very definition, is about discovery, and ANY scientific theory is open to adjustment through continual study, and refinement. AND, unless a person who calls themselves a "scientist" is not, while doing so, operating with some hidden agenda....actual, honest scientists will accept FACTS that serve to modify and enhance previous theories, even if such facts contradict one of their own.

That is real science.

As to the video posted, about "Dr." Don Easterbrook? (In a thread about Lord Christopher Monckton?)
Here's a good debunk of Easterbrook:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
 
Like 9 out of 10 dentists agree that 'fluoride' prevents tooth decay. Like it took the medical profession 200 years to finally admit that scurvy was due to a simple vitamin deficiency?
 
Like 9 out of 10 dentists agree that 'fluoride' prevents tooth decay?
Yes they do. It doesn't prevent decay - it limits it. It's a chemistry thing.

Like it took the medical profession 200 years to finally admit that scurvy was due to a simple vitamin deficiency?
Yes. It was a having to discover first what the hell it is you're observing, and having to create a whole new set of concepts and vocabulary for it kind of thing.

Harder.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
'... the strongest warming trend in 500 years'. Was the previous one caused by human activity? Or were there other causes?
 
Like it took the medical profession 200 years to finally admit that scurvy was due to a simple vitamin deficiency?

How can a 17th century physician 'finally admit' scurvy was caused by a vitamin deficiency when they didn't even know about vitamins?

It was long known that fresh fruits helped fight scurvy but treatments didn't always work, and they didn't know why. The concept of 'vitamins' was only established in 1896, and vitamin C was only discovered in the early 1900's. After many experiments, it was proven that vitamin C prevented scurvy. The scientific community agreed.

Is this some talking point you read on NaturalNews or somewhere?
 
'... the strongest warming trend in 500 years'. Was the previous one caused by human activity? Or were there other causes?

Try to avoid rhetorical questions. If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
 
Was the previous one caused by human activity?
Human activity always has a heating effect on the planet. Especially when it puts back CO2 into the atmosphere a million times faster than it was taken out.

The living planet in its natural state will always reduce its temperature progressively until it becomes a snowball, virtually extinguishing land surface life, as it removes and fixes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere until so little is left that the planet tends to revert to its "natural" (without CO2) surface temperature of probably around -50 deg C. At some point the polar icecaps will meet at the equator.

It is only "saved" by the action of volcanoes which, being virtually the sole activity on the planet's surface, gradually replenish atmospheric CO2 which will always "overshoot" because there's barely any plant life at first to contest it.

Earth's plant life gradually brings the inevitable hot arid inland deserts under control over millions of years in successional waves and earth's average temperature falls towards the next ice ages and eventual snowball event.

Which is where we were until about 5,000 years ago. Heading for the next ice age in 22,000 years (from then) and the next snowball event in a couple of hundred thousand millennia, maybe. But that's all changed, now.

Or were there other causes?
As I have said - volcanic. There are earth orbital and axial variations called the Milankovitch Cycle which precipitate ice ages (and take us out again) but snowball events depend on plant and volcanic activity, and TIME.

What else? Well solar output is forever increasing, and earth's volcanic activity forever decreasing. So it's an ever-changing scenario. I think we've seen the last of ice ages and snowball events, as we will either succeed or fail to control our average atmospheric temperature.
 
Last edited:
The Gish had galloped before the stable door had been closed.


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?
It looks like, according to this pie chart, that we must destroy water vapour as soon as possible, neutralize the oceans (destroy them), plug all the volcanos, make sure there are no plants and animals left to live and then die and decay. And then we'll be fine with just HUMANS (horaay!) left. ( Human activity being the least harmful- in case you don't get it).
 

Attachments

  • greenhouse_sources3.gif
    greenhouse_sources3.gif
    10 KB · Views: 482
This is a very old thread that was started before the posting guidelines were established. Hence it's not very well focussed. I'd be sending myself a warning if I started this thread now.

I suggest people start new threads, conforming to the posting guidelines, if they want to discuss new topics.

This thread will shortly be closed.
 
I don't know anything about 'Open Your Eyes News', it's just a chart that corresponded with literature I had read many years ago about 'greenhouse gasses'. I am simply general public intending to weave through all the lies/deception/misinformation etc. in order to find the truth. Perhaps, as some 'mystics', for want of a better word, it's ALL lies! Who knows, how do you tell?
 
Yes they do. It doesn't prevent decay - it limits it. It's a chemistry thing.


Yes. It was a having to discover first what the hell it is you're observing, and having to create a whole new set of concepts and vocabulary for it kind of thing.

Harder.
Dr. Paul Connett doesn't think so, check this at 38.00.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top