In case you missed it live, Christopher Monckton spent an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program today on the topic of global warming, skepticism, and the Copenhagen Treaty.
The video is now available.
Watch it below.
I think Lord Monckton did a splendid job.
To see the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, see this essay on the subject here.
Parts 1-7 of the hour long video are below. YouTube has time limits on clips, so it is broken up into parts 1-7.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Beck put’s on a great show, Lord Monckton did splendidly.
Available now? THAT WAS FAST!
“Al baby”
Nanny state. My mother said to turn off the lights. Now Obama wants a smart grid to see if I did. Obama knows better when I should save energy and run my dishwasher.
Having Bolton there was perfect. Kept it out of tinfoil hat-land. Excellent use of Lindzen’s work. Great show.
Got a kick out of the “Al-Baby.”
But this is just 8 minutes of the show. What about the rest?
REPLY: refresh, see updates for parts 1-6 – Anthony
This clip is only 9 minutes long.
It’s on again at 2AM EST. Someone linked to this streaming site that doesn’t seem to require a plug-in:
http://wwitv.com/portal.htm?http://wwitv.com/television/index.html?http://wwitv.com/tv_channels/b5202.htm
Well, this is Fox, so, again, preaching to the converted. Interesting though, although I sometimes think Monkton is a little pompous!
Loved it when Lord Monckton called out Gore.
Here’s the Guardian on Monckton’s appearance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen
They seem worried, I can tell by the tone of their insults…
The last & the best part:
Ecotretas
Can someone show the CO2 Math in part 4?
Thanks
Ah, old school politician. Shame we don’t make them like that any more. I’d also pay good money to see Lord Monckton debate Ed Milliband, but like Gore, doubt that would happen.
Favourite part for me was about 7.30 into the first part-
Glenn Beck: How does anybody know what anything means any more?
Lord Monckton: That’s the idea.
Anthony, are you posting any other clips because it’s not complete!
I’m a lonnng time Dem (a Texas Dem, which is different from a regular Dem) and hate hate HATE that the AGW movement became so politicized. I’ve said for quite a while that if the Obama presidency ever signed that treaty or the Cap and Trade bill became law, I’d flip to the Repubs. I know it’s not a big thing in the scheme of things, but it’s a huge issue for me personally — I don’t take switching sides lightly.
This isn’t like rooting for your favorite sports franchise here.
This is the real stuff.
The Beck show replays later tonight.
11:00pm in the Pacific time zone.
My PVR is set
Doubt not that the left watches FOX and steam was was coming out of their ears in their heated hatred of Beck and the skeptics.
This was indeed an outstanding show.
Monckton and Bolton are actually too good and too substantive for Beck. Don’t get me wrong, I think Beck did a superb job on the Commiczars and Acorn, but he simply got in the way here. Monckton is great in these two programshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg&feature=PlayList&p=BC2D71C7AB28A6C8&index=0 and http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=5281.
Bolton is probably the smartest foreign policy expert we have: Clear thinking and tough-minded.
Alas Beck and those damn commericals created a really fractured presentation. It would have been easier if Bolton and Monckton appeared on separate shows.
Anthony, thanks for posting these videos. And you are right, Monckton did a fantastic job.
Once again, very warmest thanks to my good friend Anthony Watts for posting up the video-clips of the entire Glenn Beck show so very quickly, and to the many kind commentators who enjoyed the show.
In response to the enquirer who wanted the economic math from the Lord-Board in segment D, here it is:
Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion (which Beck and Bolton had more than a little difficulty with), and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit. – Monckton of Brenchley
An excellent presentation of Prof Lindzens paper, PROVING the global warming models wrong. There is no wiggle room here.. those darn photons of energy are escaping the clutches of that blanket of CO2.
Great work Anthony, it was
priceless!
The end of the interview was truncated. Here is the completion:
Monckton Says Al Gore a COWARD and Will NOT Debate
The hour long interview, Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton is also highly recommended.
Lord, Viscount, Monckton of Brenchley?
Uh, don’t you have a “first” name? Even “Al baby” Gore has a first name. The folks down in Mississippi don’t know much about Viscounts, and such.
Sic ’em, melord! [*respectfully tugging forelock*]
And of course one wonders how we’re even going to get to over 800 ppmv by 2100 if we continue to add only 2 to 3 ppmv per year, unless we see a heck of an upward curve.
But one does have to consider the diminishing returns of CO2, so the amount of time will be greater at the far end, less at the near end. But still that’d be around 20+ years of shutdown — stipulating of course that the IPCC is correct about CO2 in the first place.
I am still missing the final part of the interview. Why is that?