After watching over half of the video . . . seems it is about carbon tax, the costs of tax schemes . . . which is an extremely expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions. Geoengineering to my knowledge is a much cheaper method, quicker to implement, and doesn't require a massive bureaucracy to enforce and manage. . . .
I would agree there are much better methods and cheaper methods . . . geoengineering being the most logical . . .
Monckton is wrong about just about everything, and misleading about the rest. But, no, I don't agree it's a waste of money. It's a waste of money if you do it wrong, and we don't really know how to do it right. It's a waste of money if it's not needed, but it looks like it might be. It's waste of money if it's cheaper and more convenient to simply live with sea level rises and 10x extreme weather events, but that's probably not the case either.
Monckton is wrong about just about everything, and misleading about the rest. But, no, I don't agree it's a waste of money. It's a waste of money if you do it wrong, and we don't really know how to do it right. It's a waste of money if it's not needed, but it looks like it might be. It's waste of money if it's cheaper and more convenient to simply live with sea level rises and 10x extreme weather events, but that's probably not the case either.
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).
Most of the articles on this site are not written by Monckton, but no doubt he supports them. These articles would have to be debunked before we can conclude that Monckton is debunked...?
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).
Most of the articles on this site are not written by Monckton, but no doubt he supports them. These articles would have to be debunked before we can conclude that Monckton is debunked...?
So what are the motives of these vocal environmentalists ?? They like to see themselves quoted in the press? They want people to panic run around and buy their books? They have hidden agendas and are part of a conspiracy? Or have they changed their minds based on new information and scientific speculation?
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).
Most of the articles on this site are not written by Monckton, but no doubt he supports them. These articles would have to be debunked before we can conclude that Monckton is debunked...?
Drifting into new thread territory. But the claims on that site HAVE been debunked. I'd recommend you pick your personal favorite SINGLE anti-AGW argument, and look it up here, and read the rebuttal:
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).
There were some studies (seven in total) in the between 1969 and 1979 that predicted global cooling, and they received a lot of media attention. Climate change research was in its relative infancy at the time. However, even then idea did not receive broad acceptance in the scientific community, and there were many more studies (42) published in the same time period that predicted global warming as a result of CO2. See the skepticalscience article.
Monckton is entirely incorrect as are all of the papers on his site? I`m not so certain.
I don`t have the time to read through it all. I am aware of this however:
"35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie"
They were going to show this bunk filled garbage to schoolchildren in the UK:
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
There were some studies (seven in total) in the between 1969 and 1979 that predicted global cooling, and they received a lot of media attention. Climate change research was in its relative infancy at the time. However, even then idea did not receive broad acceptance in the scientific community, and there were many more studies (42) published in the same time period that predicted global warming as a result of CO2. See the skepticalscience article.
1) I think we can agree Global Warming is real. . . .
2) I think we can agree there is a human component . . .
3) I think we can agree if the estimates are correct and the trends don't change air traffic will become more and more of a factor that can have impact on climate . . .
Not really - sunspot activity has not been increasing in recent decades. Solar inputs as a whole have not been increasing.
I don't really have an opinion about whether carbon taxes or cap & trade are a good way to respond, however.
The "debunking Gore" has itself been essentially debunked. Most of what he said, and what he says now, is accurate. He made some minor mistakes or generalizations in the past, but they do not affect the overall argument. He seems like an intelligent and science based man to me.
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.
It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics.
[h=3]What Al got right[/h]Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule. Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here. Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.
[h=3]What Al got wrong[/h]Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence." Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions.
The "debunking Gore" has itself been essentially debunked. Most of what he said, and what he says now, is accurate. He made some minor mistakes or generalizations in the past, but they do not affect the overall argument. He seems like an intelligent and science based man to me.
I generally agree, but to me the Al Gore issue is mostly a distraction from the issue of whether AGW theory is well-founded. It often goes into whether he's a hypocrite, whether he has financial motivations tied to carbon trading, etc. I'd rather focus on the science.
The "debunking Gore" has itself been essentially debunked. Most of what he said, and what he says now, is accurate. He made some minor mistakes or generalizations in the past, but they do not affect the overall argument. He seems like an intelligent and science based man to me.
I would like him to stop running and face Monckton in a one on one debate. It`s never going to happen, and the reason for that speaks volumes about Gores lack of credibility. Why would anyone even attempt to defend Al Gore?
This is a debunking site - Al Gore made a movie which is as incorrect (if not more so, and provably so) than WITWATS.
Be aware that a judge this month instructed British teachers showing the film to tell their pupils that Gore makes at least 11 false or unsupported claims.
Monckton states (using IPCC figures) a 0.00007 Celsius degree reduction ? One fourteen thousandth of a degree?
And this will cost $127 billion over the next 10 years...
So is it more reasonable - as stated, to react to any changes that "may" occur ?
My opinion after listening to the effectiveness (or lack of) and the costs involved, is that it is a pointless waste of money to attempt to alter the climate...
Apparently AG made 1 incorrect claim & at least 3 correct ones (I haven't seen the movie, just going from Mick's post above) - did WITWATS make any correct claims???
How much Global Warming will a 5% reduction in Australia's emissions achieve?"
Monckton states (using IPCC figures) a 0.00007 Celsius degree reduction ? One fourteen thousandth of a degree?
And this will cost $127 billion over the next 10 years...
It is a complex subject, but 97% of actively publishing climate researchers are convinced by the evidence for AGW. See Doran (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010), which used different methods to arrive at about the same number. A survey of the abstracts of all peer-reviewed papers in the ISI database published between 1993 and 2003 with the key words "climate change" found that of 928 papers, none disagreed with AGW (75% agreed, 25% didn't say either way)(Oreskas 2004).
Isn't this "argument by flood of links" the sort of thing that chemtrails activists do? Does the existence of creationism/ID websites mean that evolutionary theory isn't "settled"? (I use the word "settled" there with some dislike - just like evolutionary theory, AGW remains actively researched.)
What skeptic arguments do you find compelling? Pick one to start with, and let's discuss the science.
Monckton states (using IPCC figures) a 0.00007 Celsius degree reduction ? One fourteen thousandth of a degree?
And this will cost $127 billion over the next 10 years...
So is it more reasonable - as stated, to react to any changes that "may" occur ?
My opinion after listening to the effectiveness (or lack of) and the costs involved, is that it is a pointless waste of money to attempt to alter the climate...
That's like saying if you have 0.1% of an umbrella, and you make it out of solid gold, then you are still going to get wet in the rain.
The counter argument is that you need a full sized umbrella, and don't make it out of gold.
This Australia example is not a good argument. He's grossly misstating the cost/benefit relationship, most economists with expertise in the climate think that CO2 reductions will result in a net benefit for the economy.
Would you agree that it is a waste of money to try to alter the climate?
How can we agree on this complex information when Monckton makes a very good case (financial case) for doing nothing...
Which is correct.
It is both a waste of money, and ineffective to attempt to reduce c02 emissions.
The costs involved are astronomical and the wait and see approach "if" any action is necessary in the future is a better option than carbon taxation which achieves very little.
Therefore - the original video I posted is correct. "trying to alter the climate" IS a waste of money.
(I did not start this new thread btw - I only posted in another thread that climate change methods were ineffective and financially unreasonable. I used Monckton to illustrate the point. He is correct in this respect)
The vast costs imposed now - verses the various 'estimates' of what "may" happen in the future.
Monckton is correct that the "something should be done" (as you state) is both ineffective on actual global temp decreases, and financially it would be far better to wait and see...
The vast costs imposed now - verses the various 'estimates' of what "may" happen in the future.
Monckton is correct that the "something should be done" (as you state) is both ineffective on actual global temp decreases, and financially it would be far better to wait and see...
He states that he is using IPCC figures? If he is - then he is correct.
How effective are current policies (worldwide) to reduce C02 emissions - verses the vast costs involved?
One does not have to be a rocket surgeon to see that we are being taxed unnecessarily to the tune of $multi billions, as the C02 reduction schemes currently in place have little or no effect on global temperature.
Better not to waste $billions/($trillions) now based on what "might" happen sometime in the future?
Surely you realize that the Mail and the Telegraph are right wing newspapers who are strongly pro-business? Their spin on the subject cannot be taken as objective.
Reducing carbon emission is not entirely free, which is why there's this kind of pushback from businesses. But given their vested interests, perhaps their opinions on the matter are not the best ones to listen to? Why base your opinions on Daily Mail articles, when they are so clearly trying to push a very particular message with little regard for the facts?
These articles tend to be incredibly short sighted, focussing only on the costs in one area, and ignoring the benefits in other areas.
Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.
And there is a broad consensus on what 'might' happen. Climate scientist agree that rising CO2 is radically altering the Earth's climate (for a human timescale perspective), and they agree that we will be a lot better off if we don't let it continue to rise.
It would be necessary to see HOW he is using the IPCC figures - something that is not readily evidenced from the video. There are plenty of cases of people on all sorts of sides of all sorts of arguments making a hash of analysis of "official figures" - and personaly I think this guy is probably more prone to doing so than most if he thinks it can help his case.
How effective are current policies (worldwide) to reduce C02 emissions - verses the vast costs involved?
One does not have to be a rocket surgeon to see that we are being taxed unnecessarily to the tune of $multi billions, as the C02 reduction schemes currently in place have little or no effect on global temperature.
Indeed one does nto have to be a "rocket surgeon" (or even a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon! ) to see that - one has to be a climate change denier who has already begged at least 2 questions
Better not to waste $billions/($trillions) now based on what "might" happen sometime in the future?
also a reasonable suggestion on the face of it - but one that I think you are putting forward with a presupposition that it is the case, and not actualy looking for a reasonable answer......especially if it does not fit your agenda.
It would be necessary to see HOW he is using the IPCC figures - something that is not readily evidence from the video. there are plenty of cases of people on all sorts of sides of all sorts of arguments making a hash of analysis of "official figuers" - and personaly I think this guy is probably more prone to doing so if he thinks it can help his case than most.
Using "official figures" is a very common fallacy, the "fallacious appeal to authority". While the figures themselves are true, and the authority of the body is not in question, the actual usage or interpretation of those figure is where the bunk exists.
An extreme example of this is found in the chemtrail community, with things like "NASA claims contrail conditions require very cold and humid air, the NOAA says humidity was at 40%, hence chemtrails exist"
And there is a broad consensus on what 'might' happen. Climate scientist agree that rising CO2 is radically altering the Earth's climate (for a human timescale perspective), and they agree that we will be a lot better off if we don't let it continue to rise.
"Might" happen - exactly. Nothing much "might happen.
Wasting $billions on "what ifs" is not sensible in my opinion (which happens to be Moncktons opinion)
As yet nobody has mentioned whether or not wasting $billions of our money on C02 reduction is actually working to reduce global temps. It appears not.
Monckton points out the futility of the taxation verses the effectiveness in terms of "possible" temp reductions for Australia alone. That all looks pointless and ineffective based on what "might" , or might not happen some time in the future.
I think the UK Govt claim it will cost £20 billion per year to meet C02 emission targets? (so we can double that for a more honest figure) All of which is pointless and ineffective if China carry on as usual.
The science is clearly not settled on how effective computer model predictions of future "possible" (whatever scaremongering) are...
Better not to waste $billions/($trillions) now based on what "might" happen sometime in the future?
also a reasonable suggestion on the face of it - but one that I think you are putting forward with a presupposition that it is the case, and not actualy looking for a reasonable answer......especially if it does not fit your agenda.
So what 'WILL' happen in the future and 'WHEN' in the future will this happen?
And how much taxation is acceptable to try to avert this inevitable (event/s)?
Where would you draw the line, at what spending point, - and admit that a wait and see policy should be adopted - then attempt to tackle whatever 'might' happen 'if' and 'when' (whatever) does happen, if it ever does?
But 'might' here means VERY LIKELY. That's why I put it in quotes.
Because science tends to phrase things in probabilities and ranges, then skeptics get away with saying "scientists don't know....'
But there's a very strong consensus in science that there's a very strong probability that we WILL be in trouble.
It's like insurance - you MIGHT get in a car accident, you MIGHT get cancer, and your house MIGHT burn down - so many people have insurance in case those things happen.
The analogy breaks down because int eh case of car accidents, it's actually far less likely than sea level rise and massive rises in extreme weather events. So its like insurance yet you've managed to rig the game so you are only insuring for things you know are VERY LIKELY to happen.
Where would you draw the line, at what spending point, - and admit that a wait and see policy should be adopted - then attempt to tackle whatever 'might' happen 'if' and 'when' (whatever) does happen, if it ever does?
That makes no sense. The choice is not to spend ALL out money or NONE of out money. It's to spend SOME of our money, a quite small percentage, as insurance. And it's really not even JUST insurance - the money does not go into the pocket of the insurance company, it goes into the economy, employing people - the "green collar" jobs.
The problem with wait and see is that by the time you see, carbon levels will be too high to do anything about. And we ALREADY KNOW with a high degree of certainty, that there's a major problem.
But 'might' here means VERY LIKELY. That's why I put it in quotes.
Because science tends to phrase things in probabilities and ranges, then skeptics get away with saying "scientists don't know....'
But there's a very strong consensus in science that there's a very strong probability that we WILL be in trouble.
It's like insurance - you MIGHT get in a car accident, you MIGHT get cancer, and your house MIGHT burn down - so many people have insurance in case those things happen.
The analogy breaks down because int eh case of car accidents, it's actually far less likely than sea level rise and massive rises in extreme weather events. So its like insurance yet you've managed to rig the game so you are only insuring for things you know are VERY LIKELY to happen.
Where would you draw the line, at what spending point, - and admit that a wait and see policy should be adopted - then attempt to tackle whatever 'might' happen 'if' and 'when' (whatever) does happen, if it ever does?
That makes no sense. The choice is not to spend ALL out money or NONE of out money. It's to spend SOME of our money, a quite small percentage, as insurance. And it's really not even JUST insurance - the money does not go into the pocket of the insurance company, it goes into the economy, employing people - the "green collar" jobs.
The problem with wait and see is that by the time you see, carbon levels will be too high to do anything about. And we ALREADY KNOW with a high degree of certainty, that there's a major problem.
But we do not know - with a high degree of certainty, what, if anything will happen (if anything) sometime in the future.
Which is why nobody here will state a fearmongering prediction - or the date when (whatever?) catastrophe (if any) may (may) occur sometime in the future.
I will accept a bet on a specific prediction and a time that the given C02 related catastrophe will occur - so shoot!
Meanwhile - is there any evidence that C02 reduction measures (costing $billions/trillions) thus far have, or will reduce global temperature levels?
It is a pointless and ineffective bottomless pit of wasted taxation for zero gain - correct?
But we do not know - with a high degree of certainty, what, if anything will happen (if anything) sometime in the future.
Which is why nobody here will state a fearmongering prediction - or the date when (whatever?) catastrophe (if any) may (may) occur sometime in the future.
I will accept a bet on a specific prediction and a time that the given C02 related catastrophe will occur - so shoot!
Meanwhile - is there any evidence that C02 reduction measures (costing $billions/trillions) thus far have, or will reduce global temperature levels?
It is a pointless and ineffective bottomless pit of wasted taxation for zero gain - correct?
But we do not know - with a high degree of certainty, what, if anything will happen (if anything) sometime in the future.
Which is why nobody here will state a fearmongering prediction - or the date when (whatever?) catastrophe (if any) may (may) occur sometime in the future.
I will accept a bet on a specific prediction and a time that the given C02 related catastrophe will occur - so shoot!
Meanwhile - is there any evidence that C02 reduction measures (costing $billions/trillions) thus far have, or will reduce global temperature levels?
It is a pointless and ineffective bottomless pit of wasted taxation for zero gain - correct?
We have a very good idea. Increased levels of CO2 cause increased radiative forcing, which increases the the amount of energy in the earth surface layers - particularly the atmosphere and the oceans.
Warmer temperatures result in ice melts, and sea level rises, and changed to seasonal rainfall, and an increase in extreme weather events.
A catastrophe is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but some people think it's possible. But things will get worse. hurricanes will get more frequent and powerful. The arctic sea ice will melt. Methane has the potential to be a major problem.
A bet would be hard, because the effects are creeping and hard to attribute with normal variability, so we would need a long timeframe. I'd bet $100 on a significant rise in extreme (and very expensive) weather events worldwide in the next 10 years.
Are you aware that once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a long time. So if we keep going (increasing CO2 emissions) until there is a problem, then cutting CO2 down to zero when there is a problem will A) not work, and B) be even more expensive than cutting it now.
So what you are basically say is: "Maybe billions will die and civilization will collapse if we do nothing, and most scientist say they will, but because it's going to cost us 1% of GDP to prevent it, we should just wait and see"
You're betting some money against a likely and avoidable massive change to the planet. "Wait and see" is a terrible choice, because then it will be too late. You can't turn back the tide when it's ten feet higher.
We have a very good idea. Increased levels of CO2 cause increased radiative forcing, which increases the the amount of energy in the earth surface layers - particularly the atmosphere and the oceans.
Warmer temperatures result in ice melts, and sea level rises, and changed to seasonal rainfall, and an increase in extreme weather events.
A catastrophe is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but some people think it's possible. But things will get worse. hurricanes will get more frequent and powerful. The arctic sea ice will melt. Methane has the potential to be a major problem.
A bet would be hard, because the effects are creeping and hard to attribute with normal variability, so we would need a long timeframe. I'd bet $100 on a significant rise in extreme (and very expensive) weather events worldwide in the next 10 years.
Are you aware that once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a long time. So if we keep going (increasing CO2 emissions) until there is a problem, then cutting CO2 down to zero when there is a problem will A) not work, and B) be even more expensive than cutting it now.
So what you are basically say is: "Maybe billions will die and civilization will collapse if we do nothing, and most scientist say they will, but because it's going to cost us 1% of GDP to prevent it, we should just wait and see"
You're betting some money against a likely and avoidable massive change to the planet. "Wait and see" is a terrible choice, because then it will be too late. You can't turn back the tide when it's ten feet higher.
A carbon tax is in itself not that bad on its own . . . it is the capacity of the billions to fall into misuse, corruption, etc. . . who will administer the tax, who will decide to allocate the monies . . . it is all way too complex to work . . . when carbon fuels get too expensive then alternatives will evolve on their own . . . start with removing catalytic converters which produce NOx . . . that would reduce a very destructive greenhouse gas . . .
