Monckton on Glenn Beck Today

http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/monckton.jpgYou won’t want to miss Lord Christopher Monckton (Former advisor to UK Prime Minister Thatcher) on Glenn Beck  – Today Friday, October 30th!

Monckton as many WUWT readers know, is a prominent skeptic and has been making presentations around the USA at college campuses, similar to what Al Gore does. Monckton recently criticized the Copenhagen Treaty and the potential for President Obama to sign it as possibly ceding US sovereignty to the UN on the issue.

Times below:

Monckton will be on Fox News Glenn Beck Show, with former UN Ambassador John Bolton, for the full hour. The topic will be all aspects of the Global Warming Scare and the push for a “new world order” to “deal” with it.

Expect fireworks!

FOX cable news Glenn Beck Show

Time:  5:00pm Eastern time zone

For viewers that don’t have Fox News, check this page afterwards and we’ll put up links to the recoreded video when it is available.

For now, this video of his recent presentation can be seen here

UPDATE:

Video of the interview is now available here

Advertisements

179 thoughts on “Monckton on Glenn Beck Today

  1. Monckton recently criticized the Copenhagen Treat
    typo Treat to Treaty
    I know Halloween Trick or Treat is on the brain.

  2. This is disappointing. I thought that this site was more interested in actual science than politics. I know that WUWT criticizes former democractic VP Al Gore to no end and that’s a good thing as the thing he might be trumpeting is wrong and wrong headed. But Glenn Beck is a right wing flack. He’s not investigative. He’s a noisy, hit-man who once said that he could kill Michael Moore if he had too. This is not political debate – certainly not one for FCC regulated, tax-payer supported airwaves. If Monckton has the goods, he needs a better venue.
    REPLY: I agree, but chances of getting such a venue are next to nil when the MSM is aligned with AGW. The best one could hope for here is that other MSM outlets take notice and invite him on. – Anthony

  3. This thread is about Mockton and not Glenn beck. At least a few people have the courage to bring him on the air. I expect there are campuses facing heat if they book him.
    I am sure if the Lame stream media went back to investigating, they would have him on also.
    Time for sparks to fly.

  4. The presentation should be excellent and provide a larger platform for disseminating evidence and facts based on observation & measurement to a wider population.
    Ideally, watchers will come away from the program with information (ammunition) to share at the water cooler and on friendly coffee breaks.
    Diffusion of knowledge by friendly word of mouth is a most effective method to get the word out — and send the support for cap & trade and Copenhagen to even lower levels than now exist — thus, making it politically unacceptable for either scheme.
    Sadly, raw political power is the only thing the Democratic leadership will respect and Democrats in marginal congressional districts and Democratic senators in swing states.
    Let the good word spread.

  5. Drgregg:
    As you know, the news is not FCC regulated, yet. And besides, FOX is on Cable, not over-the-air; just like CNN and MSNBC. And none of them are taxpayer supported.

  6. “Copenhagen Treat” is probably a Freudian slip. I’m sure it will be a “Treat”, junket or jolly for most of the attendees. Shame they’ll be discussing our ultimate despatch to the dark ages…

  7. Could you let us Brits have a link to the show if its recorded as soon as practical so that we can listen to what is said. This will be fascinating. As you all know we don’t get unbiased reporting over here, anything other than the AGW mantra is removed or ignored or derrided with scorn by the BBC & msm, & it will be interesting to see what the two AGW subversives at the Beeb, Messrs Richard Black & Roger Harrabin (he of Jo Abbess please don’t hurt me infamy), have to say on today’s Climate Fools Conference by Piers Corbyn among others, yes, they actually bothered to turn up & listen apparently, which in itself is a miracle! I dare say it will be buried within the bowels of the BBC’s envirnment website never to be seen again. AtB

  8. While I find Beck somewhat entertaining, he becomes difficult to watch after 5 minutes. I hope he puts Moncton at the top of the hour.
    As for Beck being right wing as dgregg implies – I don’t agree. Small L libertarian perhaps, but not right wing. The right wing label has been applied by the left. It calls anyone who takes offense to the administration right wing.
    It has been libertarians, such as the Cato Institute, who have lead the way exposing the bad science and political motivations behind the AGW movement. I notice that Cato is also labeled as right wing by the AGW left.

  9. Subverting for political and personal gain the entire agw debate by Algore doesn’t belong on beck? sheesh.

  10. I am European and not familiar with Glenn Beck but if what comments above say about his right wing leanings are true this could be an ambush. Associate the skeptic’s point of view with right wing extremists and scientific debate will hit the buffers.

  11. Read and Sign Instrument of Repudiation
    Important Notice for America’s Future
    The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty. The word “government” actually appears in the Treaty as the first of three purposes of a huge, new, supranational bureaucratic entity that will have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in imagined reparation for imaginary “climate debt” – and all this just as final scientific proof that CO2 has a tiny and harmless warming effect is available. Please sign the Instrument of Repudiation, and urge at least five of your friends to sign it too, and urge each of them to find five more to sign it. The Instrument will be tabled during the Copenhagen Conference this December.
    So sign now, and save America’s freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
    http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php

  12. dgregg (08:44:12) :
    “I thought that this site was more interested in actual science than politics.”
    Politics and the science of AGW are inexorably intertwined. In honest inquiry of global warming it is hard to escape notice that many of the cast of AGW characters, like Jim Hansen, are political activists; many of them are politicians – chief among them is Al Gore. The AGW believers have their hit-men like Seth Borenstein too.
    I personally wish Monckton had a better outlet than Glenn Beck. Unfortunately, Monckton wouldn’t be given 1 second of air time on any of the MSM stations.
    Irrespective of our opinions of Glenn Beck, we can’t dismiss the fact that Glenn Beck’s show has one of the highest prime time viewerships on cable TV. If you want to get a message out, you seek the avenue of broadest distribution as Monckton appears to be doing. I believe most who watch can differentiate between the antics of Glenn Beck and the rationale of Monckton.

  13. dgregg (08:44:12) :
    But Glenn Beck is a right wing flack. He’s not investigative. He’s a noisy, hit-man who once said that he could kill Michael Moore if he had too.
    —-
    I’ve come to the conclusion the people that “hate” Glenn Beck do so because that’s what they’ve been told to do by other media outlets. The alternative is to actually listen to him for more than a few minutes (at most) and make up their own minds and, frankly, that’s just too hard.
    These people are easy to identify by their use of “Media Matters Glenn Beck Talking Points”. For example, the completely out-of-context portrayal of the Michael Moore comment. Another sign is when the attacks are solely on ad hominem and ridicule.
    He’s more than willing to back up everything he says with independent sources will correct / retract any statements he makes that are proven false. Which, by the way, is rare given that he talks for FOUR HOURS each weekday between radio and TV.

  14. if what comments above say about his right wing leanings are true this could be an ambush.
    I doubt it. Twice as many Americans lean right as lean left (40% are in the middle).

  15. Naw, he can’t be a right wing flack, he’s just as disgusted with the Republicans as he is with the Democrats.

  16. >But Glenn Beck is a right wing flack
    I’m curious – have you ever actually watched his show?

  17. bud dingler (09:21:53) :
    “I have no respect for anything related to that hack Glenn Beck. You lost me here Anthony”.
    Bud, with all due respect, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck either, but it’s 1 hour of televised information with Moncton and John Bolton and I trust Moncton from making his case. He won’t allow Beck to hi-jack the subject.
    This is a typical case where the cause justifies the means.
    Grow up and live with it I say.

  18. If you oppose the notion that global warming is happening and that it’s the fault of man and industry then you are labeled right wing.
    If you disagree with a liberal on whether the sky is partly cloudy or partly sunny then you are labeled right wing.
    You have to consider the source of the insult and dismiss it accordingly.
    For my money if the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama hate Fox,and Glenn Beck especially, then I consider the source and dismiss the criticism.
    I have a brother in law who has gone off the deep end for Obama. He considers his job situation and bad finances to be directly my husband’s fault. I consider the source of the insult and dismiss it.
    I’ve listened to Glenn Beck on the radio. He mostly talks about things I’ve known since 1991. I consider him a late-comer to the party but at least he’s showing up. Plus he’s funny. You’d be surprised how effective humor is at getting a point across.
    Maybe that’s why people hate him so much. He is effective.
    If I had a functioning television set I “might” consider getting cable just so I can watch the shows that the lefties hate.
    In the meantime, thanks for planning to put up the links. I’ll be watching when you get them put up.

  19. BTW, Lord Monckton was on Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier this week or last week, so I don’t see how the TV appearance is that much of a big deal (considering the radio audience is more than 3 times bigger than the TV’s 3 million plus).

  20. Anyone that doesn’t recognize that the AGW efforts are nothing but a political power grab by the left are kidding themselves. Once they can threaten that their opponents want to take away Social Security, health care, and to doom the planet, their grip on power will be impossible to break.
    It is nice to float around the web discussing why this or that is wrong, but make no mistake about what is at stake here. It is nothing short of your basic freedoms.
    Glenn Beck is very funny. He is more extreme than I am, but I am more extreme than others.

  21. As requested up above, can the American visitors to this website please let us know where we can see this in the UK once it has been aired. It says it all that Monckton has to travel the Atlantic in order to get out the truth.

  22. I see some curse Glenn Beck. Well. I know Glenn Beck would welcome Algore on his show. We would clearly see who is lame. would Alogore take and answer questions?
    If this is neutral, Algore would even be welcomed to debate on Glenn Beck.

  23. I think Dgregg is confused here:
    “This is not political debate – certainly not one for FCC regulated, tax-payer supported airwaves.”
    Fox news is 100% cable, so it is not transmitted over the airwaves. He’ll have to come up with another rational for censoring Fox.
    Of course the other confusion is that while the airwaves are “publicly owned” they are not “taxpayer supported”, all the broadcasting infrastructure is privately owned and paid for, there is no public subsidy of the airwaves, except for the value of the broadcasting license which costs the public nothing but opportunity costs.

  24. For the foreigners out there, in the US the left wing socialist/Marxists identify anyone who does not agree with them as right wing radicals.

  25. Thanks for the heads up, Anthony. I’ll definitely catch the Glenn Beck show tonight, not so much to see Lord Monckton as to see John Bolton. He’s a very brainy and articulate guy and hopefully Beck will give him a lot of time. I encourage your readers to stick around for his segment.
    As far as Monckton is concerned, I wonder if he’ll present what Lucia dubbed his “Artful Graph” of purported IPCC projections. That’s the one she ripped to shreds at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/.

  26. I looked at Monckton’s presentation that was linked from here some weeks ago. Lord Monckton made a big deal out of slagging off Al Gore’s accent. He talked about “Lah”s rather than lies.
    It had to be the most infantile ad hominem contribution to the debate I have ever come across. At least when the alarmists make an ad hominem attack the focus on someone’s history, or previous jobs or organisational memberships and not their accents.
    Methinks that Glenn Beck’s heartland and southern audience won’t appreciate an attack on a perfectly normal southern accent.
    And this coming from a Lord with the Plummiest accent I have ever come across.
    Oh and lord Monckton, if you want to be taken seriously, lose the (bright pink) crown from your presentations and use your real name.

  27. dgregg (08:44:12) :
    >This is not political debate – certainly not one for FCC regulated,
    >tax-payer supported airwaves. If Monckton has the goods, he
    >needs a better venue.
    I thought Beck was only on the Fox News Network–a cable channel. Is his show also on broadcast TV somewhere?

  28. PSU-EMS-Alum (09:58:42) :
    BTW, Lord Monckton was on Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier this week or last week, so I don’t see how the TV appearance is that much of a big deal

    Tv show is transmitted worldwide. That’s the difference.

  29. I’m looking forward to this broadcast. The Cap-N-Trade bill and the Copenhagen Treaty are the linchpin of the global governance elite’s world domination plans, but nature is laying their plans to waste. I hope they talk about the solar minimum we are in now.

  30. I think the title of this post pretty much says it all.
    As for the Beck “centrist” claim, he may pretend to be, but his audience doesn’t:
    “Glennbeck.com is a top 5,000 site that reaches over 1.3 million monthly people, of which 1.1 million (97%) are in the U.S. The site appeals to a rather male, skewing older, mostly Caucasian following.The typical visitor listens to Rush Limbaugh, visits breitbart.com, and reads washingtontimes.com.”
    Your “consider the source and dismiss the criticism” logic is interesting. You are basically saying that you don’t listen to those that you disagree with. Kumbaya.

  31. Henry chance (10:08:42)
    That’s a very good point.
    All of the most hated Fox and otherwise affiliated conservative broadcasters have invited the opposition on their shows. The hosts have treated them respectfully and debated civilly. I’ve heard many times the most liberal guests on Sean Hannity and they have all been treated well and when those guests are invited back…they accept.
    That speaks volumes for basic fairness on the airwaves. And who really practices it.
    One only needs to look here at this blog to see that even the AGW proponents are given a forum to speak. Granted they get shredded if they haven’t got their homework done but they still get the chance.

  32. Glen Beck is not only amusing in his presentation, he is also very good at looking at issues not being covered by twelve other news agencies. He has also been a supporter of AGW skeptics for quite a while, even while employed at CNN at the same time Ted Turner was talking about soylent green in the next ten years. Without people like Glen Beck then it seems unlikely we would find out about people like Van Jones, our now resigned green jobs czar. If you don’t like loose cannons in news then probably you don’t like him. I believe a few loose cannons in the media from all political perspectives at worst is harmless and at best explores those areas most won’t bother with.

  33. ” BCC (10:35:34) :
    Your “consider the source and dismiss the criticism” logic is interesting. You are basically saying that you don’t listen to those that you disagree with. Kumbaya.”
    If they are irrational…yes I dismiss them.

  34. Henry chance (10:08:42) :If this is neutral, Algore would even be welcomed to debate on Glenn Beck
    HE is, instead, too neutral, really “buffered”, crystallized as a diamond, hard but breakable, kind of fragile, delicate stuff, not to be touched by commoners.

  35. It just occurred to me that Lord Moncton might also be a right wing fascist troglodyte too.
    It seems he was once associated with the Conservative Party in Britain. It is even rumored that he was once an adviser to the Iron Lady herself, Lady Thatcher, the most right wing World Leader from Britain since WWII.
    I advise all correct thinking progressive people to boycott his broadcast today. His radical thoughts might infect yours and cause you doubt the truth as revealed by the most educated and learned people in the world.
    /sarc off

  36. It seams Glen Beck is coming around to logical thinking but you must remember, he is a divide and conker (CFR) Council on Foreign Relations member, just as virtually all journalists and reporters are. Their main goal is to adhere to and promote the Council’s written foreign policy, which is to say only positive things about a certain country in the Middle East and push for global governance. US foreign Policy is written by foreigners for foreigners.

  37. This is not political debate – certainly not one for FCC regulated, tax-payer supported airwaves.
    Luckily, since Beck is on cable, that’s not an issue.
    (I presume you’d have the same issue with Jim Hansen or Al Gore on Olbermann.)

  38. Shame Monckton could only get on Beck. Beck isn’t right-wing, or libertarian; he’s a self-promoting loony. Also, I don’t think he can spell oligarchy.

  39. I have watched Glen Beck recently, the last 2 weeks. He is not a journalist per se, and will tell you so. He does have a news network behind him with plenty of journalists to do the digging.
    What you get is an hour of Monckton in full view of America’s largest audience, which Fox News carries.
    Those of you who are familiar with Beck’s point-of-view know he’s not right-wing at all. He’s more on the Libertarian/Populist axis. Left wing / Right wing are the X-axis of politices, Beck is on the Y-axis.
    And one last thing, Beck maintains a red phone straight to the White House, and he reminds everyone that so far, nobody from the Administration has called him. Guess who will be added to that Red Phone list?
    So, WUWT readership, this is the moment you have been yearning for. 1 full hour of the “other side” of the debate over Climate Change. It’s probably as good as you are going to get, so pay attention and prepare to answer a lot of questions from the sheepie that have noticed the world outside thier window doing exactly the opposite of what AGW predicted. The trolls will also be ready.
    Political?
    Yes, it is fought in the halls of Congress, as the ‘scientists’ who concocted AGW in secret won’t go mano-a-mano, but prefer to hide behind their sandbags of secrecy and obfuscation. It’s political now.

  40. Pingo (10:06:55) :
    As requested up above, can the American visitors to this website please let us know where we can see this in the UK once it has been aired. It says it all that Monckton has to travel the Atlantic in order to get out the truth.

    You can find his shows here, sorted by weeks.
    http://glennbeckclips.com/
    Larry

  41. I find Beck refreshing – an unabashed civilian U.S. patriot. He better not stand in front of Lou Dobbs, however. Bolton’s insights into the UN are also very necessarily enlightening and sometimes tremendously humorous. Monckton (as each of them can, to be sure) can ably speak for himself.
    SCIENCE vs. POLITICS? Come on, many of us here have worked in Gov./Sci. – do we need to take a poll on this?
    It is also the highest ideal to delve exclusively in any specific indulgence in isolation from any distractions, but ideals have ways of being compromised realistically sooner, or later. Anthony, et al handles this blog splendidly – check the activity. He doesn’t allow too much of a dilution, but can anyone argue that we are not in a crucial time regarding the reputation of Science, worldwide and historically?
    Critically important is to get as many of the most active, directly related scientists to openly relate scientifically objective climate science to the masses. Widely promoted open debate by authorities on climate science would be fantastic, if both sides would show up.
    In the mean time the demeaned AGW “skeptical” position needs to have any representatives who are willing to challenge the established Gov./Media AGW dominators and take the inevitable hits. While an increasing number of terrific objective/”skeptic” scientists have done this from day one I believe one of the best debaters has been the sun (I’ve much to learn regarding the causes and cycling of ocean heat loss/capacity).
    AGW Alarmism momentum has been impeded slightly and affords us an opportunity to protect the future reputation of Science by publicizing objectivity as ideally as possible through free, open, authoritative debate. If it takes Bolton, Monckton and Beck to further “break the ice” and reach the a larger audience, so be it. All of us need to take advantage of the opportunity to publicly object to Science being hi-jacked by AGWA in order to save the reputation of objective Science.
    Beware and enjoy what may shortly have been the widest practiced indulging of free speech in history. Let’s hope our kids can at least have that to enjoy as they strive to correct our folly.

  42. Hatred has no place in the arena of scientific thought. So what if you don’t like Glen Beck? Is that any reason to say “I’m taking my ball and going home!”?, or calling him names because you hold a different political view? I have never heard him tell a lie, or try to deceive anyone. He shines lots of light on liars and deceivers, so I guess that is why many of their supporters (whaterver their political beliefs) don’t like him.
    Do you honestly believe that if conservative talk programs refuse to inverview conservative thinkers like Monckton, that the liberal talk programs will? (If you do, then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.)

  43. I’ll throw my 2 cents in …. Glenn Beck is a Libertarian, and if you’ve ever heard his views on Climate, they are pretty much in line with any scientists who believes science should rule over poltics. He doesn’t ascribe to “consensus” science, nor does he believe a poltical body has the authority in matters of science [a.k.a., IPCC].
    A lunatic … yeah .. I’ll give you that … a “right winger” … nope. A person willing to allow all views to be heard, including those of Mockton .. absolutely!!

  44. For UK readers
    Fox News Channel is carried by the Sky satellite platform – channel 509. Show starts at 9pm GMT.

  45. Charlie (Colorado) (11:19:45) :
    A quick note from Pedants Я Us: I believe that’s properly “Christopher Lord Monckton”.

    Actually, his full name is “Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.” That is according to his biography on the SPPI web site.

  46. Well I listened to Beck when he was on radio, before he ever got on TV at CNN and Faux. I couldn’t listen to him very long at a time. He’s an alcoholic, wore womens panties to avoid military service… wait, that was Shawn Hannity. It was Rush Limbaugh who had the boil on his tushie.
    He did describe seeing Michael Moore’s dying eyes while he choked the life out of him. He also pledged to poison Nancy Pelosi and regularly tries to fire up the woo woo extremists to… oh I don’t know… maybe assassinate Obama. He once talked of committing suicide after doing these things.
    I’m a Nader/Baldwin voter, so I can look objectively at both sides of the CFR tools. Michael is correct, and only a few men like Rupert Murdock and Soros own basically all of the media.
    Maybe Beck will threaten the life of Al Gore, have a nervous breakdown and finally be committed to the mental institution where he belongs.

  47. 40 Shades of Green (10:25:32) :
    “Methinks that Glenn Beck’s heartland and southern audience won’t appreciate an attack on a perfectly normal southern accent.
    And this coming from a Lord with the Plummiest accent I have ever come across”.
    That’s exactly why it is so funny and it’s the reason he can afford it to make a joke about it. It’s called “British Humor” and believe me, they are famous for it around the world. As there are at least 40 shades of green, there are 40 shades of humor too.
    I for myself look at the content of the message and if the message is clear and and well understood by the receiver. Well, I think we could not do better.
    Moncton is a top scorer, virtually unbeatable in any dispute, interview or presentation.
    I am glad we have him at our side.

  48. ” rbateman (11:23:13) :
    I have watched Glen Beck recently, the last 2 weeks. He is not a journalist per se, and will tell you so. He does have a news network behind him with plenty of journalists to do the digging.”
    That is a fantastic observation. It brings a question to my mind.
    What constitutes a “journalist”? A “journalist” is supposed to search and dig deep for information with the goal of finding out and publishing exactly what happened with regard to any given event. Right?
    Are there any “journalists” in the MSM that do that? Or do they put into their stories only the information that soothes their own points of view?
    Think about this: Has there ever been a published news story that you have first hand information about that the published account got partially or completely wrong?
    And if you pointed out the error…where did they print the retraction…if they printed one at all?
    Most of us out here in the world do more digging and information seeking than these “journalists”.

  49. bud dingler (09:21:53) :
    I have no respect for anything related to that hack Glenn Beck. You lost me here Anthony.

    In case you haven’t noticed yet this is not about Glenn Beck but what Lord Monckton has to say…ah btw ‘Hi, Welcome back’ when u return back from the lost-lands.

  50. Glenn Beck isnt the best air personality, but he has a huge audience and growing. While the rest of the media tried to cover up or sit on huge stories related to abuses of government and tax dollars, he reported them and is being rewarded with a big, mainstream audience.
    His shows are too slow to be interesting, but the rest of the media isn’t doing the job and that has emboldened the government even further, so he will continue to gain popularity by exposing government abuses.
    This is a very good thing for exposure to the debate.

  51. evanmjones (11:42:26) :
    already posted
    I think that’s the older interview.

    Yes, you are quite correct. Next time I’ll actually open the link and see what’s in there before I open my big mouth.

  52. John Bunt (10:15:34) :
    “For the foreigners out there, in the US the left wing socialist/Marxists identify anyone who does not agree with them as right wing radicals”.
    The road to power Socialists and Marxists take, defined by history is the road of chaos.
    First make the public scared by shaking up the very basis of their existence, than create a few incidents (if possible bloody ones) and make the power grab when people are confused and distracted.
    Obama is skilled in all facets of the “revolutionary process and approach” and so are most of his Czars.

  53. BCC (10:35:34) :
    You gave no link to your ‘quote’. Why didn’t you want to reveal where you got it from?
    You played the race card. Why do that?
    You make yourself look suspect. You can’t blame anyone else for that.

  54. also, I have watched Monckton’s presentation and I think it will go over extremely well on Beck’s show and for his audience. His dismissive humor is perfect for this kind of show.

  55. Gene Nemetz (11:52:49) :
    He got the “quote” from here: http://www.quantcast.com/glennbeck.com
    I’d never heard of this site though it looks like something that someone in the industry(MSM) would use frequently.
    Interesting about the low female turnout for the ratings demographics. I wonder how many of those females that don’t listen simply don’t have the time in the mornings due to family considerations.
    I’d listen to the full show if it were later in the day. My mornings are usually filled with the chaos of housework. Yeah, stereotypical, I know….
    I usually delight in mocking people by saying in a whiny voice “but I’m just a GIRL”.
    Usually right after I’ve fixed an appliance or built a piece of furniture…. 😉

  56. dgregg (08:44:12) :
    This is disappointing. I thought that this site was more interested in actual science than politics.

    dgregg, as long as AGW is 100% politics-driven, we skeptics have a responsibility to deal with it head on, especially in pointing out its hypocritical and scandalous ($1 to Lucy) use of “science.”

  57. Murray (12:21:35) :
    “You guys watch Glen Beck!! Crikey!”
    These sorts of comments could equally apply to shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR…
    Why not do something novel – actually watch the program and make up your own mind (that’s what I’m going to do). Then again, perhaps your mind is already made up…

  58. It’s been mention that it is too bad that this highly informative scientific site is turning to discussions of politics. And I agree, however it is true that the non-science promulgated by alarmists HAS been politcized, for far too long, and that the real science surrounding climate and discussion thereof has been largely ignored, and this poses and very real threat to the future of society but also to the pursuit of real and honest scientific endeavors. It is not enough that right thinking men and women sit back allow the truth to become self-evident, the damage will have already been done. It is imperative that honest, thoughtful, women and men become active to stop alarmism and misinformation NOW. We should not suffer the bastardization of scientific research.

  59. Has anyone noticed that left wingers have absolutly no sense of humor and they they are unable to detect sarcasm?

  60. For those of you who don’t like Fox or Beck; don’t watch.
    Just sit there in the dark. It will be good training for you as
    Cap and Trade fundamentally changes your life.

  61. Robert M. (12:52:47)

    “Has anyone noticed that left wingers have absolutly no sense of humor and they they are unable to detect sarcasm?”

    That’s not funny!

  62. Dgregg :
    “This is not political debate – certainly not one for FCC regulated, tax-payer supported airwaves.”

    The only public, taxpayer funded radio show is the very left-leaning NPR, or National Public Radio. One can usually can find it down in the lower 90’s FM. Listen to the truthful debate on it, NOT.

  63. This hour should be one of the more enlightening hours of the 5 pm EST time slot. While you may not accept Beck’s positions on anything, he is extremely thought-provoking. His “What if I am right?” take on the Marxist agenda of the Obama administration is right on target. [http://obamaism.blogspot.com/]. Having Monckton on FOX, the most-viewed cable channel in the nation, should serve to dramatically open the eyes to a very large and THINKING American audience. And it looks like the AGW Alarmists will likely fall into the trap of throwing the baby out with the bathwater [“Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece%5D.

  64. It behooves us all to do our own research on how treaties affect domestic law in our respective countries.
    In the US, treaties override state laws and so is a direct threat to our sovereignty. Not only that, courts and judges are beginning to refer to Common International Law in rendering decisions. This phrase is mentioned in the Constitution, but it was never the original intent that international law should be viewed as a unity with domestic law.
    It is at least obvious that a judicial creep towards international laws is a battle we will be/are facing, and is only exacerbated by the signing of outrageous treaties signing away our GDP and setting up a world government.
    A brief primer for the UK, the US and Australia from the Australian Dep’t of Foreign Affairs on the subject of treaties and domestic law.
    http://www.dfat.gov.au/treaties/workshops/treaties_global/jennings.html

  65. I am a 100% sceptic. Monckton is a very good speaker but he is behaving like a clown, playing up to the American right wing crowd for money (the lecture circuit). He’s a lot smarter than that. He was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
    Anyone seen as being identified with the American extreme right (like Beck) will be utterly dismissed by the mainstream.

  66. Here is an excellent post from another Monckton thread. I realize it is TLDR for many, but it is worth repeating if it is alright with the moderators:
    alistewart (07:00:20) :
    Interesting site and debate, even for a layman. I do not have sufficient scientific background to be able to come to any conclusion on AGW, (yes or no). I do have enough education to follow most of the arguments and some of the maths. From my own more particular experience of decision-making, in business I would make the following observations:-
    There are two sides to the argument, both with some cogent evidence. But neither with all the facts, by any means. Worse, “facts” on both sides are too often based in insufficient data- erroneous assumptions- fallacious hypotheses. Even worse they are then used to extrapolate yet more but insufficient data into scenarios which support the result required rather than the actual result. Worse still, the data, hypothesis and resultant scenario are presented with so much emotion, window-dressing and hyperbole as to be unintelligible to anyone but God.
    This is the nature of decision making. It is usually difficult to sort the wood from the trees. My experience is that to make fundamental decisions in such circumstances is to mostly invoke the law of unintended consequences- very expensive and inconvenient. ( 9 times out of ten the best response is to ask for more data, test the stuff you have and replay the hypotheses. At this point the arguments start to stack up a little better one way or the other, particularly if the second round of research is directed intelligently to cut to the chase while ignoring the chaff. Usually, doesn’t take too long and very often presents other options not previously considered. The worst argument I have most often heard is “we’re running out of time”. That is rarely the case- most bad decisions are made in haste.
    We are at the point that the two scientific positions are at absolute loggerheads. Observationally, neither able to concede a single point to the other for fear that the whole house of cards will crumble (DDT in point). That is a scene that reeks of dogma, on both sides, suggesting that neither side is 100% confident. So, yes more research.
    Certainly what I can see from the evidence is that the last few years data do suggest that we have more time, that since ‘95 the rate of global warming has been negative, since ‘07 the ice packs have not melted, and that climate change may not have gone away by any means but is at least in remission, affording us more time. Let’s take some and have some generally accepted proofs rather than opinion.
    I in now way see the fact that the scientific community has differing opinions, myriad opinions as an indictment. On the contrary, it is surely healthy, but only if the debate is propelled. What I currently see is far more energy expended on shoring up entrenched positions than the pursuit of knowledge.
    So why has that happened? Here we come to the politics.
    It s impossible to separate them from the science, like it or not. Research is now so expensive as to be prohibited without sponsorship, from somewhere. Government, Commerce and academia all have vested interests. We cannot be so naive as to imagine that they will throw billions of dollars at potential results that do not suit them in place of results that do.That is not to say that the recipients of such sponsorship are charlatans, but it must mean that often the research is diverted toward “more useful channels”. It is inevitable; few creatures wish to bite the hand that feeds them, and certainly have to provide some sort of value for money as decided by the paymaster. In that way some data, results, conclusions do get weighted/skewed. Not sure which way necessarily, but it’s likely.
    So, I am not persuaded of imminent irreversible climate change or global warming, nor am I convinced of man’s contribution. I am not convinced that CO2 or equivalents are the fundamental catalyst in the process and I am less convinced that a carbon based solution is the right or only one to the problem.
    I am convinced that a Global, hugely complex, highly engineered, incredibly expensive solution deigned to fix a problem as yet undefined, is never going to be 100% right.
    For sure we need the second round of research to start now, and it should have some definition, to speed up the cycle time, but to suggest that we only have “50 days to save the planet” is lamentable
    A long post I think, so a credit to the site that it has motivated me so far. I will spend another two pennerth on Copenhagen specifically, based again in the decision making I have been involved with and the unintended consequences that I have personally suffered as a result.
    I have not seen any scientific analysis that has said “Early Dec ‘09 is the last possible date for a decision. By Christmas we are beyond the tipping point- catastrophe is inevitable” In fact, not one amongst even the shrillest eco-warriors has suggested this is the case. No-one has suggested a tipping point on any particular dateline. Of course we don’t want to waste time but Copenhagen goes way, way beyond science. No I haven’t read it all, but enough to know this is commercial and political. It is the vested interests that are demanding the timeline.
    Suggests to me the politics are much more important than the science. Well, for those of us in the UK and Eire who have seen the effect of reversible agreements, voluntary treaties, enabling agreements, outstanding ratifications on supra governmental constitutions, et-al the unintended consequences have been unimaginable. When Heath took us into the Common Market as was then, we thought we were signing up to a free trade agreement centred mainly on agricultural trade.
    Little did we realise that the EU as it has become would be more onerous than the dead hand of the politburo on the Soviet’s satellites. It’s edicts from the unelected commission now pervade every facet of our lives, eroding our freedoms, traditions and our very way of life. Magna Carta, on which the US constitution was largely modelled, 800 years of law, Habeus Corpus, gone at the stroke of a pen. Such is the rate of creep, of Brussels over our activities that
    we have had more laws enacted in the last ten years than in the previous 2 centuries, many drawn up by unelected officials, sadly 80% of them in Brussels. Our parliament is now all but ineffective having ceded power to the EU so much so that there is now nothing we can do about it. Whatever they want they get- more taxes, more bureaucracy, more control. Although Lisbon is not quite in place, we are already operating as though it were, and when the Checks cave in as they will be forced to they will have the lot. The end of the United Kingdom as we know it. There is nothing we can do about it.
    I see too many parallels with The New World Order signalled in the Copenhagen draft. It is more than the thin end of a wedge.
    Let’s be careful what we wish for.

  67. I love Glen Beck, and have two of his books.
    He isn’t a reporter. He’s a political commentator. However, a lot of what he comments on is not covered by the main stream media or journalists, and if it is, it is very poor and predictably biased. He’s not right wing at all. But, as someone once said, “The Left are so far left that everything else is to the right by comparison”.
    It’s not surprising that he has so many listeners/viewers or that those numbers are growing (personally, I canceled my cable some time ago; Fox news would probably be one of the few I’d keep. The local radio station hosts both Beck and Limbaugh, though). Politicians are gutless on both sides of the isle – with a few notable exceptions – and are simply ignoring what is the right way to allow the people to prosper.
    Beck has had Lord Monckton on several times, and he truly is a breath of fresh (commentary) air. One of the few valuable exports from the UK – I know there are more like him over there; it’s time to pack your bags and come on over. SAD will be a thing of the past; I can tell you that from experience!

  68. I’ll throw my 2 cents in …. Glenn Beck is a Libertarian, Deanster
    So many like to call themselves that these days. If they don’t want to destroy the Federal Reserve System or at least allow banking and money competition then they are just phonies, IMO. Or maybe Ron Paul and I are anarchists.

  69. Deborah (11:43:53) :
    We would do more digging if we had access.
    That’s the problem. It took Steve McIntyre how many years to drag the data out of Briffa? AGW Utopian Fantasy Agenda is way ahead of that “science debate” that should have taken place years ago, and now sits poised to pass legislation based on events that are not happening.
    The fight is now at the political level.
    How much access do we have there?
    Last time the GOP tried to bring in it’s star witness to the Climate Hearings, the Dems slammed the door in his face AFTER his plane had landed.
    After which, Mr. Nobel Prize Warmist ran away with a pasty look on his face.
    Fetch that video. Did Gore go weak-kneed at the sight of Monckton?
    Oh yeah, we got access, but not where it counts. Not yet anyway.

  70. I do apologise but my pedantic gene will not be quiet until I have corrected what appears to be the common American mispronunciation of the title “Viscount”.
    It is pronounced “Vie-count” not “Viss-count”.
    To hear a Lord of the Realm introduced as a “Viss-count” makes a true-blue Limey cringe!

  71. hotrod
    You can find his shows here, sorted by weeks.
    http://glennbeckclips.com/
    ————————————————————-
    The video clips (usually six clips) are posted on YouTube at, or shortly after, 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time by the owner of the glennbeckclips blog.
    A constitutional lawyer friend has informed me that treaties do not alter or amend the constitution of the United States. Amending the constitution requires the process described in Article 5 of the constitution.
    The key phrase in Article 6 of the constitution is that “treaties are made under the authority of the United States.”
    Beck describes his show as opinion and backs-up his opinion with quotes and videos of the miscreants he is exposing.
    Mark Steyn has an article in MACLEANS.CA showing the close relationship between the AGW mongers and the enviro-wackos: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/
    The article is supportive of Lord Monckton’s opinion that the COP-15 agreement is a first step in a new world government:
    ————————————————–
    “I’m always appreciative when a fellow says what he really means. Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”
    Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry. After all, we all care about the environment, don’t we? So we ought to do something about it, right? And, since “the environment” isn’t just in your town or county but spreads across the entire planet, we can only really do something at the planetary level. But what to do? According to paragraph 38 on page 18 of the latest negotiating text, the convention will set up a “government” to manage the “new funds” and the “related facilitative processes.” – Mark Steyn
    ——————
    Goodnight Ms. Dunn, wherever you are!

  72. NPR is in the pool with Global Warming. They do NOT return emails or answer questions regarding it, for they are a “Science is Settled” position. They interview one side, and one side only. Nobody can call in and question the interviewees who espouse Global Warming.
    I used to enjoy listening to NPR’s Science Friday.
    The Door is Shut.
    It was made by those who are Warmists.
    And the Warmists keep it.

  73. “SAD will be a thing of the past”
    I live in the second wettest town in the UK (near Glasgow). It doesn’t get SADder than that.
    I felt that Monckton was playing up to his American audience with views he doesn’t hold and was also laughing at them more than once. He suggested the reason they didn’t know something was ‘just because you are yanks’. Very close to the bone.
    I see AGW as a left wing issue fighting carbon trading which was set up by the oil companies and is heavily supported by the banksters.
    Kyoto, Enron and Gore.
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/enron.htm

  74. Whilst you were all bickering over the political stance of the Fox News reporter, here in Euroland the various nations leaders have come to an agreement to pass £90BN over third world countries – the divi up to be decided at Copenhagen.
    Some of the smaller hard up EU nations will pay less than others and there are no prizes for guessing who will end up with the lion’s share of the bill.
    Our half witted gullible idiot of a Prime Minister, having emptied the coffers in a 10 year spending spree on welfare in the belief that he had ended boom and bust and turned economics on it’s head, and having racked up the biggest borrowing requirement in our history that will take generations to repay, is going to hand over gratis even more money to save the world – this time from AGW.
    What will be his legacy? When this scam has run it’s course and reality sets in he will be regarded as the biggest buffoon in our history.

  75. Back2Bat (13:33:25) :

    ” Or maybe Ron Paul and I are anarchists.”

    Perhaps ya’ll are a bit of that. But you know the libertarians are a pretty mixed, and not usually so cohesive, group of individuals. Like herding cats. Which is why the “Big L’s” seldom win an election. And Ron Paul (I do like that guy, btw, even participated once in a machine-gun shoot where he popped a few caps) runs as a Republican.
    Chuck, a “small ell” kinda guy

  76. Ed Scott (13:37:49) :
    A constitutional lawyer friend has informed me that treaties do not alter or amend the constitution of the United States. Amending the constitution requires the process described in Article 5 of the constitution.

    Yes, but a treaty can trump state laws!

  77. Eric Smith (13:26:13) :
    he is behaving like a clown, playing up to the American right wing crowd for money (the lecture circuit). He’s a lot smarter than that.
    I would agree that he’s a lot smarter than that. That’s why I think he’s not in the circuit for money. You should go with your instincts that tell you he is smarter than that and not say he’s a clown in it for the money. You sure you’re on the ‘skeptics’ side??
    I’m pretty sure he’s rich and doesn’t need the small amount they pay for appearing on the show. And I’m pretty sure he’s doing the show because of Glenn Beck’s ratings. He will reach enough people to put a real wedge in ‘manmade global warming’. It will be noticeable in poll numbers. And that wedge could be the beginning of the end for AGW here in America since the two harsh winters in a row, and the beginning of what looks like an even harsher winter, already has people questioning Al Gore’s global warming.
    The science and politics presented by Monckton today could be what makes a clear turn in the tide here.
    10 minutes to show time!!! I should get some popcorn!

  78. rbateman (13:35:04) :
    Agreed. We need to be as tenacious in regaining and retaining our freedoms as the statists have been in taking them away. Remember that they’ve been working towards these ends for decades. It will take time. But with the motivation of liberty we will win.
    It’s funny that this generation that is running our government was the one whose mantra was “Question Authority” back in the ’60’s but now that they’re in power their new mantra is “shut up, we know what’s best”.
    We just have to love freedom and life more than they love slavery and destruction.
    We have to win. The alternative is too horrible to consider.
    Didn’t I read once that only about 30% of the American Colonists supported the Revolution? hmmm…have to go find that again…

  79. Gene Nemetz (11:49:21) :
    Ron de Haan (10:06:24) :
    just the video, this link works
    http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0_0_WP_3001.html?currentPlayingLocation=8&currentlyPlayingCollection=Business&currentlyPlayingVideoId=6E28205E-E862-4BBE-A65D-DE5391D13BAF
    Gene, thanks for the link.
    I’ve watched the video and it’s a warmist’s attempt to make an excuse for the crooked models and explain the current cooling, but at the same time stating that the number of scientists that support the consensus is growing and the majority of scientists believe the warming will continue.
    To be falsified:
    1. There is no consensus
    2. I doubt the number of scientists joining the “consensus” is growing!, I think more and more scientists are convinced AGW is a hoax.
    3. There is no indication that the current cooling is temporary and the warming is going to continue.
    4. It is stated that ocean temperature data is hard to come by.
    This too is not true because we have satellite ocean surface data, buoy and shipping data and we have the argo network data.
    In short: this video contains information based on half true’s and even factual lies which makes it propaganda.

  80. Zeke the Sneak (13:48:36) :
    Ed Scott (13:37:49) :
    A constitutional lawyer friend has informed me that treaties do not alter or amend the constitution of the United States. Amending the constitution requires the process described in Article 5 of the constitution.
    Yes, but a treaty can trump state laws!
    ——————————–
    and the judge in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution (state constitution) or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

  81. Speaking of things abhorrent, the latest (November) Costco Connection has a cover-story that features Algore: Separate Problems, One Solution.
    Worthy of a letter to the editor
    There is a national emergency for the H1N1 virus.
    A global emergency should have been declared years ago about the global epidemic of scientific ignorance and Algore, the “typhoid Mary” of AGW.

  82. Gene Nemetz
    The opposition call him a clown and it’s really easy to see their point. He sells tickets for $60 a head on his Canadian and American tour. That’s where the money comes from.
    The point I am making is that even I as a sceptic do not trust anything that comes from the American extreme right. Neither will anyone else outside that circle. Heritage foundation, Cato etc. The oil companies set this up and have given money to these guys to discredit the opposition. You will see Lindzen, Spencer, Watt and many others tarred with the same brush.
    This is my 100% sceptic website
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm

  83. evanmjones (14:01:44) :
    and a third undecided.
    That middle third swayed toward whichever other third had the upper hand.

  84. Monckton knows his sainted hero and former boss Margaret Thatcher initiated global warming as a serious political issue (because I told him) but it doesn’t suit his right wing stance. His reply was aggressive and defensive. She was fighting a war against coal and her husband was the director of a major oil company.
    http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL=9/20/2007@16725_Public_.htm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jun/30/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment1

  85. I’m watching Monckton right now on Beck and I have to say, he seems like an incredibly sincere and likable human being.

  86. I think I see the lights slowly going out on a unique 500 years of progress of human civilisation.
    Pray that I am wrong.

  87. Actually, his full name is “Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.” That is according to his biography on the SPPI web site.
    Right, but we’re not sending him a letter. Proper address for a Viscount is “Lord ‘family name'”, with “‘first name’ Lord ‘family name'” if necessary to distinguish hom.
    Strictly in this context it should be just “Lord Monckton” or “Lord Monckton of Benchley” but if a first name is used, it goes before “Lord.” That form is appropriate for the son of a Viscount.

  88. America is mostly comprised of people whose ancestors left Europe because they had a dream of much better life in America. That kind of thinking is in the blood of their descendants. Europe is now trying to put itself back in their laps (Marxism is trying too) and it will not sit well with those descendants.
    I don’t see Americans accepting rule from foreign countries that will make them head toward serfdom.
    I hope I’m right. If not I can always move out.

  89. The debate with Al Gore challenge!!
    Now lots of people know that Al Gore has been avoiding debate!!!
    hehe!

  90. The Math Lesson
    So that’s 33 years of pre-industry living , for the whole planet, for 1 degree Fahrenheit of improvement in mean temperature. Pre-industry living being horse and carriage, blacksmith industry and water powered mills.
    __
    No wonder this idea is so popular <sarcasm

  91. Monckton Challenges Algore to a debate………AGAIN and calls him out. Wonder what intrade has that at?

  92. Monckton is a political firestorm. He’s a great contrast to the hand wringing drips in the warming faction. None dare to go toe to toe with him because he’s done his homework and has the realistic position in the controversy.

  93. My wife and I just watched the program. The Lord did well, especially highlighting Prof Lindzer’s study in a very iconic graph. We especially enjoyed Monckton’s challenge to Al Gore to join him in a debate on AGW. It will be interesting to see how many hits this program will get on YouTube.

  94. Lord Monckton came across very well indeed, as did Mr. Bolton. It is so refreshing to hear a measured, responsible and truthful discussion on the telly…
    Mike

  95. I just watched the show.
    Normally I’m not a fan of anyone whose name is preceded by “Lord”. But in Moncton’s case I make an exception. Hi presentation was outstanding. I hope every American was watching. His challenge to Al Gore was great!

  96. Shows over. Won’t make any difference to anyone’s opinions or beliefs about AGW. Gore won’t respond to the challenge. Monckton should have had a glove with him and formally challenged Gore to a duel. As Bolton said, “something will be agreed to in Copenhagen because they must be able to declare success”. If Obama signs up to this, his days are numbered (politically speaking of course ).

  97. mtnrat (14:58:03) :
    Beat me to it Gene. I hope it gets youtubed.
    It would get more than YouTubed! Don’t worry! There would be ample outlets to see it on during and even more after!

  98. Deborah (13:53:48)
    Didn’t I read once that only about 30% of the American Colonists supported the Revolution? hmmm…have to go find that again…
    ————————————————————-
    If you read the book, 1776, by David McCullough, the population was split in four ways: Those that remained loyal to England and moved to Canada; those that remained loyal to England and stayed; “moderates,” the que sera sera group (whatever will be group); and those who fought and died and won the right to be free from English authority for the survivors and the non-participants, et al.
    After reading the book, I realized that we (the colonies) are lucky to have succeeded in the revolution.
    ———————————————–
    If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. —Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  99. For everyone that missed it Glenn Beck Show is repeated in a few hours.
    There’s 2 comments above in this thread that give links to Fox News on the internet. So you can watch it that way. Anthony also said in the post he will link to the video embed on the internet as soon as its available.
    Definitely worth seeing.

  100. Curiousgeorge (15:10:04) :
    “Shows over. Won’t make any difference to anyone’s opinions or beliefs about AGW. Gore won’t respond to the challenge.”
    I don’t agree with tour statement “Won’t make any difference to anyone”.
    1. Until yesterday, Moncton’s clip at youtube from last week scored 1.7 million hits.
    2. Now we had the FOX interview with Bolton which was a very good interview.
    3. The Repudiaton Campaign, just started, already over 6000 signed:
    http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php
    Read and Sign Instrument of Repudiation
    Important Notice for America’s Future
    The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty. The word “government” actually appears in the Treaty as the first of three purposes of a huge, new, supranational bureaucratic entity that will have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in imagined reparation for imaginary “climate debt” – and all this just as final scientific proof that CO2 has a tiny and harmless warming effect is available. Please sign the Instrument of Repudiation, and urge at least five of your friends to sign it too, and urge each of them to find five more to sign it. The Instrument will be tabled during the Copenhagen Conference this December.
    So sign now, and save America’s freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
    5 The skeptic Blogs
    6. The current weather, every cold day makes people wonder.
    7. The polls
    8. The opposition in the Senate (Those Senators will notice the broadcast of Fox with Bolton and Moncton.
    There is still six weeks to go and a lot can happen in six weeks.

  101. “Al baby.”
    When was the last time anyone called him that–and then told him to stand up or shut up. Forever.
    The Lindzen graphic was well done.

  102. Beck is a libertarian and entertainer. But he also possesses common sense and an inquisitive mind. Bluntly demeaning him for carrying messages unfavorable to the Obama administration on an opinion program is a low cut. At least we can hear alternative views there, people. The Lord Monckton has a superb mind and a deep understanding. He has been a eloquent spokesperson about global warming and this is an appropriate format. Try to be a bit more forgiving and exercise some graciousness instead of low rate criticism. This topic is too big and significant for all our futures.

  103. That’s why I like this site – it only covers the science that matters! (And preferably doesn’t rely on all those know-nothing, politically-motivated mainstream scientists!) Keep up the good work!!!

  104. An Open Letter to Al Gore and any other Statesman Pushing AGW:
    I wonder if any of our great historical statesmen would have backed away from a debate with a representative of Britain. What about that light of men, Benjamin Franklin? Would he have feared the words of some Englishman? And would Thomas Jefferson hide in the corner of his estate quaking in fear of words???
    Is there not a statesman left in all of the USA who has even an ounce of confidence in his own beliefs?
    Al Gore, you and all your cronies are COWARDS!!! Cowards I say!!!!
    Slink away then… slink away… hide like the cowards you are…
    Mike Bryant

  105. 8. The opposition in the Senate (Those Senators will notice the broadcast of Fox with Bolton and Moncton.
    Apparently the White House has assigned someone to watch Fox News all the time and gives updates to the President. President Obama will be briefed on this show.

  106. Mike Bryant (15:52:59) :
    “An Open Letter to Al Gore and any other Statesman Pushing AGW:
    I wonder if any of our great historical statesmen would have backed away from a debate with a representative of Britain. What about that light of men, Benjamin Franklin? Would he have feared the words of some Englishman? And would Thomas Jefferson hide in the corner of his estate quaking in fear of words???
    Is there not a statesman left in all of the USA who has even an ounce of confidence in his own beliefs?
    Al Gore, you and all your cronies are COWARDS!!! Cowards I say!!!!
    Slink away then… slink away… hide like the cowards you are…
    Mike Bryant”
    Mike, I loved the challenge made by Moncton on Fox News today.
    In short:
    We debate and lift the Climate issue to a higher level or you hold your tongue on the subject forever.
    It was wonderful.

  107. Looks like it’s here:
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsAGJwQhoY ]
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o ]
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg4qL6MTn5g ]
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4a4FQmiU8 ]
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME61jepLQUo ]
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oclDw5HlP7w ]
    Ecotretas
    REPLY:Thanks. I had to bracket the links as WP kept trying to post six previews and it overloads.
    I have them all collected in a new post, which previews and plays OK with WP embedding, please use that:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/
    – Anthony

  108. “D. King (16:18:32) :
    Mike Bryant (15:52:59) :
    Troll baiting Mike?”
    Not at all Mr./Mrs./Ms. King,
    I am speaking from my heart.
    Mike Bryant

  109. Glenn Beck gets results in Washington that most politicians can only dream about. There have been a couple resignations already because of his shows and some policy changes. The people who watch his show might not be large in number but they are politically active and vocal. They will do all they can to tank that treaty. Lord Monckton could not have picked a more politically active audience.

  110. Mike Bryant (16:27:34) :
    It’s Dave King.
    I am speaking from my heart.
    I know how you feel. Your post did make me laugh though.

  111. Eddie Murphy (15:27:43) : [dozens of links, all way off topic -SNIP]
    That’s fine, I understand, I didn’t think you would post it. The truth that’s buried below the surface is… I wouldn’t want to get you shut down.

  112. @ Ron de Haan (15:32:00) :
    I’d love to see this Treaty or Agreement, or whatever they want to call it, go up in CO2 laden smoke. Ditto the Cap &Tax bill. But at best, as Bolton said; “they will simply kick the can down the road” , pat each other on the back and declare success. And we’ll have to wrestle with this pig again later on. Trouble with wrestling pigs is you both get filthy dirty, but the pig likes it. As for Becks segment, consider who watches it. Not the oinkers that’s for sure. And even if they did, you ever try to change a pigs mind? Doesn’t work. Better to do him up as a Christmas ham.

  113. As for Becks segment, consider who watches it. Not the oinkers that’s for sure.

    Actually his demographic is much broader than most people think. Moderate democrats and libertarians/independents make up a significant fraction of his audience, and it is growing all the time. The term Main Stream Media is actually exactly backwards. His viewership is higher than all the other networks combined in the same time slot. He is the main stream show, not the old legacy networks.
    You change public perception by inches not by miles, it a few moderate democrats, libertarians and independents (republicans almost universally discount AGW) take the arguments presented seriously and began to question the prevailing view, then they will over time, convince others in their peer group to take a second look at the facts. Over time that creep in perception will bleed across the majority of the population but it takes time, and the most effective advocates are people you already agree with on most other things. It gives them credibility you would never assign to some TV commentator, especially if he has been summarily dismissed by the local pundents as a whacko.
    Larry

  114. I don’t think (hope) that our country (U.S.) will commit to anything at Copenhagen, it’s just not Obama’s modus operandi to make realtime decisions. I agree with Bolton that he will just kick the can down the road. I am more fearful that the Cap and Trade bill will get passed here as it won’t take as many Senators to pass and those Senators “see” it as keeping American money in America. But in reality it would be a horrible first step in a track towards the global agreement that is going to be pushed at Copenhagen.
    With the masses focused on the healthcare bill and the scraps being thrown to the moderate Republicans on the Climate Bill, it just might pass!

  115. Here is a Guardian article. They had someone standing by to post it immediately. That’s how much of a gift Monckton is to the opposition
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen?commentpage=1&commentposted=1
    Even a rabid neocon like John Bolton apparently thinks Monckton is too extreme.
    Let me make it clear. I believe everything he says, INCLUDING the world government stuff. However, it isn’t at all helpful to mention it.
    American right wing politics is poison outside a small section of the USA population. My comment is there but I couldn’t defend Monckton in that arena. The climate stuff is irrelevant. What a missed opportunity, He is a brilliant speaker and educator.

  116. “Strictly in this context it should be just “Lord Monckton” or “Lord Monckton of Benchley” but if a first name is used, it goes before “Lord.” That form is appropriate for the son of a Viscount.”
    Let’s just call him Chris.
    (Incidentally, I have the impression that in the bad old days, lords and kings referred to themselves by their locale. In Shakespeare, the King of France just calls himself “France.” So maybe he’d have called himself “Benchley” back in the day.)

  117. Regarding the question of whether treaties can over-rule the constitution; in my opinion the founders never intended that. If they had they would have included treaties in Article V as a means of amending the constitution. But they didn’t do that. Bear in mind though that many of the people in power today don’t give a rat’s petuti about the constitution and will interpret it to mean whatever they want. A case in point; Heller vs DC where 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices could not correctly interpret the simple phrase “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  118. “And this coming from a Lord with the Plummiest accent I have ever come across.”
    His is far from the plummiest accent I’ve heard. It’s pretty middle-of-the-road, for a “U” (Nancy Mitford’s term) speaker.

  119. Monkton/Lindzen seem a little wrong to say that Longwave radiation has increased.
    “Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
    Put simply the paper shows a significant decrease in the relevant LW radiation.

  120. …….Mike Bryant (16:22:43) :
    I’m not sure why, but the truth does sound so much better in an English accent:…….
    ————————
    I’d be willing to listen to that in any accent or language, up to and including Swahili. He was telling the simple truth and it was quite obvious that they didn’t like it.
    If Copenhagen fails and people start waking up to how much they’ve been deceived, Monckton can personally take a great deal of the credit. He is out there talking to anyone who will listen with the very latest science in a form anyone can understand. He makes it impossible to fudge the figures and be uninformed. Maybe its too late, but if we can dodge this bullet the climate itself may bring down the curtain on this nonsense.

  121. Why doesn’t the U.S. have an “English” accent but the blokes in Australia do? Think about it and read about it. And then, on a side not, think about why our football championship gathers so much attention and your’s doesn’t.

  122. Curiousgeorge (17:02:44) :
    “As for Becks segment, consider who watches it. Not the oinkers that’s for sure. And even if they did, you ever try to change a pigs mind? Doesn’t work. Better to do him up as a Christmas ham”.
    That’s a dangerous remark Curiousgeorge.
    What if a situation occurs where the pigs take over power and decide to do you up as a Christmas ham?
    History bears many such occasions and it even happened in “Animal Farm”.
    Besides that, the taste of such a Christmas ham must be horrible.

  123. I just watched the older debate between Lord Monckton with Rayner, a political climate scientist.
    http://www.fcpp.org/mediamap.php/5
    Lord Monckton wiped Rayner from his feet, but at the end of the debate, Rayner kept pushing for the precautionary principle approach.
    As soon as these guys are in an isolated environment like any UN IPCC meeting, they will continue their own way.
    The huge problem we are facing today is that most of the negotiators and politicians believe that the effects of AGW already have arrived and they have to act.
    That is why it’s important they are stopped at the political level which is the US Senate for now.
    Therefore sign the Instrument of Repudiation her:
    http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php

  124. 4 billion (22:08:22) :
    Monkton/Lindzen seem a little wrong to say that Longwave radiation has increased.
    “Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
    Put simply the paper shows a significant decrease in the relevant LW radiation.
    This thing is still behind the paywall at Nature and I didn’t think it justified spending 32 bucks to read it. I was able to find several papers of more recent vintage that covered the same ground. The abstracts had extravagant claims for having shown that AGW was proven by their work and they did mostly show the claimed differences in the specific GHG LW fluxes, but what seemed to receive much less ink was that just the variations in the LW flux from H2O was often 2-3 times the total of all the others put together, which would seem, at least to me, to make the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of the climate a little hard to justify.

  125. 4 billion (22:08:22) wrote: “…Monkton/Lindzen seem a little wrong to say that Longwave radiation has increased.
    …Put simply the paper shows a significant decrease in the relevant LW radiation…”
    The Lindzen paper says otherwise, maybe the science isn’t settled?
    maybe the data is noisy and ambiguous?
    maybe CO2 has no significant effect on climate?

  126. “….Yep, roughly 40-45% of the colonists supported the revolution.
    ‘A companion to the American Revolution’
    By Jack P. Greene, Jack Richon Pole
    http://tinyurl.com/yca8m5a….”
    I didn’t read the entire book at that link, but how the f would they know?
    it’s not as if they had representative sampling opinion polls in those days.
    There wasn’t even much of a postal service.

  127. Dave Wendt (02:48:55)
    “but what seemed to receive much less ink was that just the variations in the LW flux from H2O was often 2-3 times the total of all the others put together, which would seem, at least to me, to make the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of the climate a little hard to justify.”
    Decreasing LW flux in the H2O band shows that atmospheric water vapour has increased, contrary to what some say.
    Atmospheric gases that create greenhouse effect,
    * water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
    * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
    * methane, which contributes 4–9%
    * ozone, which contributes 3–7%
    People are proposing that it is the increase in CO2 has increased the GH effect, not that CO2 has become the primary driver.

  128. @ Ron de Haan (00:14:13) :
    …………………That’s a dangerous remark Curiousgeorge.
    What if a situation occurs where the pigs take over power and decide to do you up as a Christmas ham?”
    Then that would also settle the matter wouldn’t it? As I’ve said many times before; “The most committed wins.”
    We’ll see who is the chef and who is the entree before much longer I think.


  129. Michael (10:51:41) :
    It seams Glen Beck is coming around to logical thinking but you must remember, he is a divide and conker (CFR) Council on Foreign Relations member …

    Plse, just go back to infowars.com, Alex Jones is calling … (my perspective anyway, others YMMV)
    .
    .
    .

  130. will (03:27:08) :

    I didn’t read the entire book at that link, but how the f would they know?
    it’s not as if they had representative sampling opinion polls in those days.
    There wasn’t even much of a postal service.

    Proxies? Of course, maybe they switched a sign someplace, and the study is not inconsistent with 40-45% opposing the revolution, especially with the error bars.

  131. 4 billion (04:43:58) :
    Decreasing LW flux in the H2O band shows that atmospheric water vapour has increased, contrary to what some say.
    Atmospheric gases that create greenhouse effect,
    * water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
    * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
    * methane, which contributes 4–9%
    * ozone, which contributes 3–7%
    People are proposing that it is the increase in CO2 has increased the GH effect, not that CO2 has become the primary driver.
    One of the papers I referenced in my previous comment was Evans & Puckrin 2006 “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate”
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
    As a work of science I’ll admit I find little to recommend it, but the measurements of downward LW flux to the surface that they gathered do provide some intriguing insights. They claim to have determined an increase of 3.5 W/m2 in the downward LW flux of nonH2O GHGs in their observed data versus their modeled projections of pre-industrial levels and this is somewhat justified by their experimental observations. But, if you look at their included charts a more interesting story develops. The total flux for all the nonH2O GHGs for both measured values and modeled data, both contemporaneous and preindustrial, varies from about 16W/m2 in the summer to about 40W/m2 in the winter. The summer value is a dead match for their modeled preindustrial number, which seems to indicate that most all of the 3.5W/m2 in increased GHG flux they found occurred in the winter. Given that I’m in Minnesota and this study was conducted in my near neighbor Canada, I’d have to say that would be an unambiguously beneficial development.
    More interesting is the data for Downward LW flux to the surface from H2O. The winter values range from 94W/m2 to 125W/m2 in winter and from 178W/m2 to 256W/m2 in summer. Given the limited scope of the study in both temporal[2 years] and geographic scales it’s hard to extrapolate any global significance from it, but it does seem to me to support the often offered statement that the top four GHGs are H2O, H2O, H2O, and H2O, and that any contribution of CO2 to the “greenhouse effect” is likely to be buried in random variation in H2O.

  132. American right wing politics is poison outside a small section of the USA population.
    It was large enough to elect the contract-with-America congress. And, if energized, it will be large enough to stop cap-and-trade and Copenhagen. The MSM and other moderates have fallen down on the job, so there’s no one else left.

  133. gtrip (22:43:24) :
    Why doesn’t the U.S. have an “English” accent but the blokes in Australia do? Think about it and read about it.

    I’ve read that some people in southern Appalachia have accents that are a relic of English in the days before the current English accent evolved to what it is.

Comments are closed.