Monckton on Glenn Beck video now available

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.

Monckton_on_Glenn_Beck

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.

248 thoughts on “Monckton on Glenn Beck video now available

  1. 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.

  2. 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.”

  3. But this is just 8 minutes of the show. What about the rest?

    REPLY: refresh, see updates for parts 1-6 – Anthony

  4. Well, this is Fox, so, again, preaching to the converted. Interesting though, although I sometimes think Monkton is a little pompous!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. The Beck show replays later tonight.

    11:00pm in the Pacific time zone.

    My PVR is set

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Robinson (16:55:09) :

    Well, this is Fox,

    The other ones combined don’t get as good ratings as Fox. What good would it do to go on CNN or MSNBC and have much less viewers? They have very low ratings, few watch them because they are clearly biased.

    You shouldn’t think that only ‘converts’ were watching. For example, I think very, very few people knew that Lord Monckton has been challenging Al Gore to debate for years. But they know now and that gives me a feeling of sublime happiness!! The horse is out of the barn on that one now!

    ——————————————-

    Many people have gone to Fox because they know all the others are hopelessly biased.

  16. evanmjones (18:34:01) :

    <i.unless we see a heck of an upward curve… the diminishing returns of CO2…less at the near end

    You were right at the beginning, “a heck of an upward curve”. They’ll take the “less at the near end” and flip it over into a hockey stick. ;-)

  17. Dear Lord Monckton,

    I am sorry but I don’t think that these back of an envelope calculations to which you seem to be so keen are useful.

    On the one hand, since the relation between CO2 concentration and increase of temperature is logarithm so 1º F does not require 1/7 of the increase that causes 7º F but a somewhat greater proportion. On the other hand, since the current yearly increase is only 2 ppmv but the total in 90 years is 468 ppmv not 180 ppmv, the rate of increase should be accelerating quite fast. Most probably exponentially. Therefore you can’t calculate the number of years to emit 1 billion by using the current rate of emission, but should consider the rate of acceleration.

    Other than that, I enjoyed very much the show. Good work!

  18. I absolutely love the math lesson given. I will wait patiently for the warmers to lead the way in giving up all electricity and internal combustion for the next 230 years just to return the planet to some imaginary “normal” temperature that existed before industry.

    Al (you know who you are), you can start first by turning off the electricity to that big house in the Tennessee hills and riding and ass to town to pick up the groceries.

  19. Monckton makes two points on the science, one that is a confusing defeatist hand waving argument that states that we would have to shut down all industry for 33 years to achieve a mere 1 degree cooler result in a century, the other is that models are wrong about positive feedback.

    The positive feedback is the work of Lindzen at MIT. The case was made, several months ago, that his complete debunking of climate models could be disregarded since he used an older data set. His work was based on an the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite. He evidently showed that as ocean surface T goes up, *more* instead of less % of radiation escapes into space so there is in fact a negative instead of positive feedback at work, and ALL climate models are utterly wrong.

    I followed this discussion recently and it seemed to come and go without resolution. So I wonder what the real result is, using the updated data? Is it that there can no longer be claimed that feedback is negative, but merely not positive?

    Discussion began and ended last April with Lindzen admitting there was an issue but claiming that he didn’t trust the corrected data due to the simple fact that it made his result less radical (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/). Not a satisfactory resolution!

    As a chemist following this debate I’m afraid the skeptical side is lacking in ability to clear this sort of thing up. One big hit to my ability to trust the skeptics at face value is how the SurfaceStations.com effort, although a very cool example of folk science at work…fails to itself provide nor link to the simplest result a curious observer would require:

    The graph of overall temperature vs. the graph of data only from the absolute best stations! My desire for info went on for months. Then I happened to run into an NOAA paper that provided this exact thing and showed *no* difference between the two graphs! Hello, *not* a good thing to withhold instead of owning up to it. The entire thrust of the Surface Stations project, namely the theory that heat island effects put temperature data in doubt, was negated. All I see about this is a promise of a future paper. Well, what’s the point if no heat island effect was found? The Journal of Negative Results might be a good place to submit to.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

    So if Lindzen’s work needs updating then where the heck is the updated “slope graph” that can be set against the group of “climate model slope assumptions” graphs? Does it still point up instead of down, or does it point sideways?

    Where is the updated result? The divide here isn’t between big guns and cheerleaders, since I’m no cheerleader. The divide is between those who regularly use statistics and data visualization software and those who don’t. I am a synthetic organic chemist who went into nanofabrication. I simply do not have the ability to reproduce Lindzen’s work with the old and updated data, but if the software hacks here would provide it, I am certainly qualified to understand it and thus comment in a useful way.

    Did Glenn Beck via Monckton just tell millions of people that there is a negative feedback involved in CO2 science when in fact there isn’t?

    I keep looking for a simple yet forceful debunking of AGW theory…and so far every lead sort of putters out so I am merely left with being able to show that AGW itself lacks support.

    I get the feeling that both sides are damnable in the same immoral way in that neither side owns up to mistaken enthusiasms. One clings to the Hockey Stick. That is enough to make me discount them, thankfully. But the skeptic’s side is starting to grate on my nerves as well. I wasted a hell of a lot of time looking into the big claims of the skeptical side. Lately it was trying to find the needle in the haystack of peer reviewed skeptic articles (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html). That CO2 nor methane can be a greenhouse gas was interesting to learn about and then infuriating to learn more about and how a pedantic technicality was used to make this claim, merely. Ugh. “Heat cannot transfer from cold bodies to hot ones.” No, but cold bodies can act as insulating blankets towards heat loss from hot bodies! On and on it goes.

    I know there’s entertaining sport in debate, but some of us just want answers. It looks like AGW is sufficiently debunked to make a good case, but it will require a half dozen points to be made instead of a single trump card being slammed down. But there are another hundred skeptical points that don’t stand up to scrutiny and so can be waved away with a soundbite. In this case the soundbite that will deflate Lindzen is that he used old data. Millions of people on the fence will be storming the web in the next week or two, looking into the background of the Lindzen paper and that single soundbite will make them hardened in their view of Beck and skeptical spokesmen as utter loons.

    Given that Lindzen’s paper may indeed have used the WRONG data, maybe they are loons.

  20. Well done Lord Monckton. It is humbling to see the deep respect you have for our Constitution. If only our leaders shared that respect.

  21. The black board formula is the most telling here. Assuming the wamist’s are right, it would take thirty three years of idle industry to reduce the global temp by 1 degree F.

    Of course, if you make the AGW scenario appear a lot worse than it is, people will accept the taxation of industry with the presumed benefit of discouragement. Yet as Lord Monckton says, it is futile anyway.

    If this is not a cover for socialism (i.e. revenge on the wealthy), I don’t know what it.

  22. Oh, this was great! Makes me want to run out and vote for some more Bush craziness, Jeb Bush! The other decendant of President Franklin Pierce (Barbara Pierce Bush) who allowed “Bloody Kansas” to kick off the civil war. See a pattern here?

  23. Monckton of Brenchley (18:11:18) :

    the Lord-Board

    Those little jokes at the chalk board were fun!! Actually you were fun at other moments too.

    I know Glenn Beck has good ratings. So many people heard things about global warming they had never heard before. I think this show started the ball rolling in public on many points of this global warming issue and put ‘an inconvenient wedge’ in Al Gore’s style.

    Thank you Monckton of Brenchley!

    I don’t know what the internet symbol for a pat on the back is else I’d put it here. ;-)

  24. Kum Dollison (18:32:51) :
    Lord, Viscount, Monckton of Brenchley?

    Uh, don’t you have a “first” name? Even “Al baby” Gore has a first name.

    You are such a dork there Kum. His name is Christopher and everyone except you apparently knows this. Why don’t you go make fun of: Dr. Dre., jay Z, and the likes instead?

  25. Nicely done, Lord Monckton. In your future presentations, may I suggest you also mention Spencer and Idso’s work on the subject, among many others, which also demonstrates very strong negative feedback in support of very small temperature changes for a doubling of CO2.

    Please also put Lindzen’s work into perspective and explain in everyday terms that the mechanism of heat transport on earth does not rely on a theoretical homogeneous sphere of gas which might support the idea of a greenhouse, but instead relies on convection and water vapor phase change which can transport enormous amounts of energy “through the blanket”, and deliver it to within a very short distance to space, with which it can radiate through a very thin layer of gas and escape unimpeded, thus negating the supposed warming effect of a “blanket”. It also explains the dominance of H20 over CO2.

    The effect makes the theoretical greenhouse more akin to one with a lot of shifting broken windows (following storms). Explain how an abundance of heat (if any) directly impacts tropical storm development and how storm intensity (every day) is directly related to daytime high temperature and humidity. This is what people see everyday and understand, and as Lindzen finally proved, is exactly what happens. Make an analogy of storm formation to boiling water in a tea kettle. If the tea kettle were somehow constrained to horizontal layers, the greenhouse effect might be more valid. Convection blows through the layers. Your chart of greenhouse effect estimates over time demonstrates that with increasing knowledge of the dynamic nature of the atmosphere, the effect is historically always over estimated. It’s a powerful chart that people will understand.

    Great Job (kneeling, bowing, calling you Sir…. nice touch)…

    When is your scheduled appearance with Scott Pelley?

  26. Ed Scott, thanks for posting the last of the video, I was searching the web for it with no success.

    Thanks also to Christopher Monckton for your continuing efforts in the climate debate. Your presentation of Prof Lindzen’s important work was clear and very understandable. Even Glenn Beck got it! Given the number of people who watched your Minnesota speech, I expect a few million will soon know about Lindzen’s findings.

  27. I, also, would like to know the story on that ERBE Data.

    Didn’t I see Lindzen using it just a month, or so, ago?

  28. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
    Monckton makes two points on the science, one that is a confusing defeatist hand waving argument that states that we would have to shut down all industry for 33 years to achieve a mere 1 degree cooler result in a century…
    ——

    Maybe I misunderstand but what is confusing, defeatist or obtuse about the argument that the other side’s numbers add up to a figure that implies a solution that is at face value, quite simply, insane?

    The rest of your post addresses feedback which I am not qualified to address but I am curious about your first point if you wouldn’t mind to elaborate. It seems logical to me but I am not above being corrected.

  29. Ugh. Glen Beck and John Bolton both make my stomach churn. But I did appreciate seeing Monckton. Too bad this took place on Fox where it simply becomes part of the Left/Right waste of time. Since it was on Beck’s show it will be viewed as a “Rightwing” opinion and won’t be accepted as unbiased.

    Am I merely a pessimist? No way. I’ve been deeply involved in politics for a long time. This ongoing Left/Right nonsense will destroy America. It is the Left/Right punch of the same monster: Big Government. And there’s no end in sight.

  30. No wonder Glen Beck’s ratings are nipping at O’Reiley’s heels. Having Bolton on, gave an excellent perspective on some of the geo-politics involved, and was the frosting on the cake.

  31. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    It looks like AGW is sufficiently debunked to make a good case, but it will require a half dozen points to be made instead of a single trump card being slammed down.

    If you’re as science-minded as you claim, then you know this is false. If the trump card falsifies AGW, then AGW is debunked, period. If you think it will take “half-dozen” points, then you must agree with the premise that AGW’s focus is basically a propaganda war, and not science at all! And if it’s not science…then why are you–a scientist–even giving it any measure whatsoever?

  32. Hi Chris. There’s a typo (a common error) in your post–change to “forgo” in:

    “So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission …”

  33. MoB makes his case well, he even managed to forego the latin on this occasion, which is sensible.

    The only aspect of the case which I feel he underplays is the importance of the MWP and RWP in disproving the GCM prognostications. You cannot believe that global temperatures have ever been warmer than now and at the same time give credence to the sensitivity figures used in the GCMs, they are mutually exclusive. The Hockey Team know this, which is why they deny that climate changed before c.1900 and why they refuse to give an inch on this no matter how absurd it makes them look.

    They understand their weakness, so should we.

  34. Monckton of Brenchley (18:11:18) :

    Absolutely smashing performance you gave. You are correct in warning us not to take the signing of this Treaty lightly. A door will be opened that should never be opened. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

  35. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    I like your approach and I agree with your logic and general sentiment.

    As always in science, it is the case for the AGW scientists to make the case for the AGW theory, or rather disprove the null hypothesis that it is not occurring. Like you, I am not convinced they have come close to achieving this and thus there should be no case to refute.

    Unfortunately, as the world hurtles towards treaty time (almost sounds like a tasty snack) in Copenhagen the scientific hands are being forced beyond the leisurely pace normally enjoyed in academia. This is where most of the debates arise methinks… conclusions are prof erred in haste to make cases for the debate and there is little time for robust scientific discussion.

    Personally I am not in a position to adequately address the detailed scientific questions on the issue, but tend to fall back to general common sense. If it has been both warmer and colder over geological time, and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere also both lower and higher, but the earth’s climate never crossed a precipitous “tipping point”, then why would one think that the time is now? Surely the null hypothesis that “the climate is pretty much normal” appears to be far more logical?

    But I am but a mere bucket chemist* & economist…. what do I know?

    * Extractive metallurgist


  36. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    As a chemist following this debate …

    Is this the source of your ‘trouble’, bucky? –

    – perhaps more of an ‘out of depth issue’, re: physics vs chemistry, radiational physics vs chem reagents and ph balance?

    And sans broaching of the ‘fortune telling’ side of the Global Warming ‘art’ or craft (model forecasting) upon which a GOODLY portion of AGW doom and gloom prognostication rests …
    .
    .
    .

  37. This piece just posted on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp) site echoes what I am trying to say:

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/offair/2009/10/in-praise-of-the-sceptics.html

    NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
    I appreciate that you are keeping a sceptical mind vis-a-vis both sides of the debate, but, as I said above, I don’t believe the AGW scientists have made a compelling refutation of the H0 “climate system is normal” hypothesis.

    No doubt if Copenhagen & co fail to result in a treaty the UN elites will concoct another approach to global income distribution, but we will have a few years respite in teh meanwhile.

  38. The null hypothesis stands. All one has to do is look outside the window.
    People do that, and they remember, as they have done for 10’s of thousands of years. There are warm times, and there are cold times, and everything imaginable in between.
    Al baby, you have been called out by Lord Monckton of Benchley.

  39. evanmjones (18:34:01) :

    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.

    Ah, but one thing I find interesting here, everyone seems to forget that the CO2 is only hanging around in the atmosphere for approximately 5yrs., so, you have to continually and inverse logarithmically, accelerate the additional CO2 emissions. You see, you pump CO2 into the atmosphere this year, and a portion is lost next year, and more the next year, etc…

    In other words, to coin one of my most recently favorite phrases, “do the math”, and you will find that these CO2 levels that are being talked about, being emitted by humans, are completely IMPOSSIBLE!

  40. Hmm. CO2 persistence is an issue of much debate. The earlier experiments seem to indicate it is shorter, the more recent alarmist assertions are that it is longer.

    I’d like to see that one tackled. It’s much harder to track because of the almost even back-forth exchanges between the sinks. If an amount of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed, is it just “falling out”? Or is it merely replacing a similar amount of natural CO2 in the exchange, resulting in a higher CO2 level in any case?

    Stipulating that the CO2 measurements are correct (they are made in more than one location these days), the stuff has to be coming from somewhere. A severe ice age-to-optimum appears to add 100ppmv to the atmospheric sink. About that much has occurred now with a 0.7C+ warming (assuming that warming is not, as I believe it is, exaggerated). So I conclude that the 3% of CO2 we are adding each year to overall output could quite plausibly result in most of the 0.4%/year accumulation we are seeing these days.

    I don’t know the answer, but it is a big question.

    Another big question is what effect CO2 actually has, once feedbacks are figured out. (I am hoping Dr. Lindzen has it right.)

    Once we calculate forcing, feedback, and persistence, we will be much closer to the real answer (which I currently believe to be “no emergency here”).

  41. Manuel (18:48:46) :
    Dear Lord Monckton,

    I am sorry but I don’t think that these back of an envelope calculations to which you seem to be so keen are useful.

    On the one hand, since the relation between CO2 concentration and increase of temperature is logarithm so 1º F does not require 1/7 of the increase that causes 7º F but a somewhat greater proportion. On the other hand, since the current yearly increase is only 2 ppmv but the total in 90 years is 468 ppmv not 180 ppmv, the rate of increase should be accelerating quite fast. Most probably exponentially. Therefore you can’t calculate the number of years to emit 1 billion by using the current rate of emission, but should consider the rate of acceleration.

    Other than that, I enjoyed very much the show. Good work!

    Ah, but, as I stated previously, that CO2 doesn’t magically stay around in the atmosphere forever. In FACT, the residence time for that CO2 is quite short (approximately 5 years by most peer reviewed literature). Therefore, you would have to reduce your “exponential” calculation perhaps exponentially, further, as you mention, CO2 has a diminish in return, which contributes even further to the problem of how to get to those CO2 levels to begin with.

    I would hypothesis; if we were trying to go the other way round, that is, we were trying to increase CO2 levels to get ourselves to some much higher atmospheric CO2 concentration. I believe we would find the task to be extremely difficult if not impossible. It would cost lots of money and we would have to figure out what to do with all that energy! What a predicament!

  42. Lindzen’s work is what made the show; There was too much talk about titles, which should be offensive to Americans, “I don’t recognize no stinkin’ titles”! His name is Christopher Monckton, and he is pompous and self-aggrandizing, but he was pretty good as far as it goes.

  43. Monckton of Brenchley (18:11:18) :

    Damn good and eloquent as always.

    Thank you for your efforts in battling this global scam and I personally admire your fighting spirit.

    All the best,

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  44. Squidly (21:13:48) :

    So the C02 that was emitted 5 years ago (2004) is just now leaving… and that C02 is from ALL sources. Now, if the Global Recession has resulted in less fossil-fuel burning, and the C02 worldwide is still rising 4 years from now, that is a telling statistic.
    Any geologists about?
    Isn’t C02 one of the precursor gases to volcanic activity along with S02?

  45. Gary (19:45:44) :

    “Ugh. Glen Beck and John Bolton both make my stomach churn. But I did appreciate seeing Monckton. Too bad this took place on Fox where it simply becomes part of the Left/Right waste of time. Since it was on Beck’s show it will be viewed as a “Rightwing” opinion and won’t be accepted as unbiased.

    Am I merely a pessimist? No way. I’ve been deeply involved in politics for a long time. This ongoing Left/Right nonsense will destroy America. It is the Left/Right punch of the same monster: Big Government. And there’s no end in sight”.

    Gary, this was about Copenhagen and the AGW Climate Scam possibly resulting in a World Government.

    The “Left-Right nonsense” as mentioned by you, in my opinion is a direct result from a very competitive two party system with ever increasing stakes involved and the excess of big Government an almost inevitable development because of the incredible number of years that this system is maintained.

    I agree with you that adjustments will have to be made to breed air in the system but for the moment it is still one of the most rigid and free system in the world.

    This said, I really think Fox News, Glenn Beck, Lord Moncton and John Bolton have done the American Public a great favor, simply by telling the truth of what’s going on and providing the necessary background information.

    I am quite sure that for many Americans it is the first time they hear an alternative view on AGW and the plans for a World government.

    I don’t believe that one of the other big stations would have made this interview, simply because of their biased position on Anthropogenic Climate Change as they continue to bombard their audience with lies and half speak.

    I really think this has been a brilliant move.

    So, no “Ugh” for me.

  46. OKE E DOKE (21:17:31) :

    so, is the Lindzen paper to be believed or not

    Depends if you believe data or not.

    People had big troubles believing Einsteins General Relativity, his explanation of gravity, etc. One scientist literally called for him to be killed because the ideas produced by General Relativity we so fantastic and bizarre. But Einstein was right, at least right-er than anyone alive before or since. Some things are like that—we can, at some point down the road, finally get a handle on what is introduced to us at the first.

    Lindzen’s work is may be kinda like that to most readers here.

    Give it time.

  47. rukidding pasted (21:44:02) :

    Why do we need 15 models for global warming

    Apparently having only 12 all wrong might draw suspicion.

  48. It is all about our freedom – all our freedoms. Not only America – but the freedom of the peoples of all western democratic nations. That is what is under attack and in jeopardy.

    Where is the seventh video?

  49. Gary (19:45:44) :

    Am I merely a pessimist? No way. I’ve been deeply involved in politics for a long time. This ongoing Left/Right nonsense will destroy America. It is the Left/Right punch of the same monster: Big Government. And there’s no end in sight.

    Being into politics so much Gary, you should clearly understand the Left/Right nonsense. Politicians want it that way. Both parties take huge advantage of a divided nation (ie: divide and conquer). I am in total agreement with you that Left/Right, two party system has the potential to bring down America. This has been talked about for many decades and even predicted more than a century ago. I believe we are ever closer to those predictions.

    The AGW debate is much the same way. As “NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :” points out, and I somewhat agree with him (but disagree with more of what he states), this is a big problem on both sides of the AGW debate. That is precisely why I believe this Glenn Beck program tonight was so valuable. It put into perspective some of the “simple” things that people can understand, and that cannot be disputed. I personally like this approach as I believe it knocks down the Left/Right influence.

  50. According to Lord Mockton 90% of Brittan’s laws are made by commisars who they dont elect and they dont hold to account! They are made in secret and the British Parliament is made to pass it. It has no option but to do so.

    Why should we democratic sovereign nations surrender our sovereignty, our ability to say no to taxes, and our ability to raise taxes to a secret bureaucratic cabal?

  51. About the funning with the Southern accent :

    People from foreign countries like to joke with the US Southern accent. Even in America we do.

    My friends from Brazil love to have fun with it.

    I try to do an Aussie accent. It ends up being British or something.

  52. Of course they need 15 global warming models.
    They need 15 models to distract your attention in an attempt to focus on the “model concensus science”, and pay no attention to programming code they try to keep secret.
    Cloaking Device.

  53. I just finished watching the videos. Lord Monckton was amazing. Did you watch Glenn Beck staring when he spoke. I could tell Beck was mezmerized. Lork Monckton stole the show. It was a great piece of reporting on television. It reminded me how television and news reporting used to be. I felt transported back in time. I haven’t felt this way about video journalism since the early years of the Reagan Administration.
    Excellent job. Excellent work.
    Thank you Lord Monckton.

  54. bateman (21:53:56) :
    Squidly (21:13:48) :

    So the C02 that was emitted 5 years ago (2004) is just now leaving…

    Not “just now leaving” .. always leaving, always being absorbed, always being mixed, always escaping to space, continuously. In theory, it is possible for the Earth to expel all CO2 to space (not sure what the Earth would look like, perhaps only leaving the iron core behind, but theoretically it could all be finally expelled to space).

  55. rbateman (22:12:14) :
    Of course they need 15 global warming models.
    They need 15 models to distract your attention in an attempt to focus on the “model concensus science”, and pay no attention to programming code they try to keep secret.
    Cloaking Device.

    Hehehe … “Cloaking Device” … you couldn’t be more correct!

    Well said!

  56. If you all couldn’t see Monckton’s love of our countries Constitution and the freedom it affords our citizens, then you must be European.

  57. Enjoyed it all, but would have liked more discussion on legality/implications of signing. Bolton seemed to be saying that Obama would not rush in and sign. Monckton seemed to be saying look out if he does. So how radical is Obama?
    Would he wing it, and could congress pull him up if he did? Still not clear to me as I’m not a full bottle on international treaties.

    Here in Australia the opposition seem to be moving towards running a negative campaign on the domestic costs of emissions trading instead of brainless acquiescence. It has the prime minister nervous, and I think the US would be no different, although it’s a strategy scientists would rather avoid. But by spearing into politics Monckton is on some ground where a greater range of people can engage with him, the same people who have been saturated with propaganda for 20 years. What do they say about fresh air?

  58. It was a spectacular performance by Lord Monckton. It was hilarious watching Beck and Bolton trying to understand the graphs.

  59. gtrip (22:52:30) :

    Ironic is it not, given that he represents the peerage of the country that you sought to free yourselves from a few years ago, resulting in the constitution in the first place. Meanwhile in poor ole convict Aussieland we are still slaves to some foreign royalty…

    Seeing Lord Monckton reminds me so much of “Yes Minister”, which was, after all, Maggie’s favorite show at the time she was PM. Can’t resist another link – I think this one illustrates well how committees report in government (no doubt some relevance in terms of UN reporting):

  60. I just watched this on Fox. Monckton is an eloquent speaker and very smart man. He certainly knows his stuff. He is also passionate about the scientific method.

    I like Glen Beck’s presentations. He has a good blend of humour and information. He certainly gets some high powered people to come on his show and speak…. and speak they do.

  61. On the one hand, since the relation between CO2 concentration and increase of temperature is logarithm so 1º F does not require 1/7 of the increase that causes 7º F but a somewhat greater proportion. On the other hand, since the current yearly increase is only 2 ppmv but the total in 90 years is 468 ppmv not 180 ppmv, the rate of increase should be accelerating quite fast. Most probably exponentially. Therefore you can’t calculate the number of years to emit 1 billion by using the current rate of emission, but should consider the rate of acceleration.

    this guy is right. there are multiple errors in that calculation!

  62. Thank you – I’ve never seen a show quite like it. Captivating actually, not only because of the content but also that it was going out to so many at last.

    Both Bolton and Monckton have a sense of humor that helps. There is a sly grin and a twinkle that put me in mind of WF Buckley Jr. at times.

    But beneath the sometimes impish humor I sense a man of real substance and purpose in Monckton – steel like the great lady herself. Al Gore would be walking right into a bear trap.

  63. Oh great! I’m sleeping good tonight… first that old fool gets on Fox and helps assure the continuation of the insane Holy Wars and the shadow government of international bankers…

    Now we have the missing volcano that I knew had to be there at the worst of the little ice age. Oh tossing and a turning all night! Anybody know of a good sleep therapy?

  64. These Lindzen graphs actually show, that there is no amplifying effect of the “greenhouse effect” by rising water vapor.

    Concept of runaway warming in climate PS3 models says: a bit warming by CO2 – more evaporation – more water vapor in the atmosphere – stronger GH effect – warmer earth – more CO2 released from oceans – more evaporation etc. It is of course nonsense, since every fluctuation should trigger this spiral of warm, like 1998 El Nino, which did not happen.

    Models show, that increased temperature generate more humidity which block outgoing LW radiation, which strengthens “GH effect”, which causes increased temperature etc. Actual measurements show that higher temperature means more LW is radiated into the space and it is not blocked by increasing “GH effect”.

    The same was observed by measurement of humidity in the upper and middle troposphere, which instead of rising is falling (upper) or constant (medium trop.)
    Any other scientific concept in light of conflicting reality should be abandoned or heavily reworked, but AGW pseudoscience – not.

  65. Thanks for posting these, a great watch this Saturday morning. Slightly OT, we’ve just had a professor sacked by the government for not toeing their political line vs the science. This was with regards to classification of rcreational drugs, but you could easily see something similar happening with climate scientists if they spoke out about the AGW hoax.

  66. Man… that whole intereview was so cool! Love the part where Lord Monckton basically tells Al Gore to put up or shut up!

    But throughout they were saying “If Obama signs this…”

    What do they mean “if”? Of course he’s going to sign it, if for no other reason than to pat himself on the back yet again (well, if he could only get past all the media hands already patting him on the back, then he would do it himself). Does anyone really think he would wait to have the support of the nation? If so, it’ll be a rude awakening for them.

    Of course, that was one of Lord Monckton’s points… don’t take the risk in assuming a signed treaty will mean no obligation. And it most certainly WILL have an immediate effect even if it is not enacted right away. The euphoria in the market is looking for something, anything, to blow all the rotten fundamentals that are the “recovery” into an outright mania. The treaty only need be signed, and the pork barrel will hit the fan. That will be bad enough, for that would be the “creative destruction” of carbon-based energy sources. I’ve little doubt much of the trillions that will be doled out will be used to “speculate” oil and coal to the point of, shall we say, encouraging consumers to beg those gods on Capitol Hill to punish Big Oil and Big Coal. That will drive CO2 reductions, as well as all the spending on “alternatives”.

    (and for all the talk of redistributing wealth to poorer nations… ha! Why would the elitists care if more human mouths were fed and lived in (pretty much the same if not worse) “better” conditions than before?)

    So Lord Monckton is right on the money. Too bad, though, that Obama is going to sign it. There’s no way that he won’t.

    But I think one good thing will come of it. In 2012, the nation should be more recptive and accepting of someone like Ron Paul (R-TX) for president.

  67. Hadn’t seen the 1975 Newsweek graph Monckton showed mentioned before:
    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    but it doesn’t come close to matching the global temp graph at
    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/climate_today.html

    Compare the temps in 1910 and 1970 for the most obvious differences.

    Same organization, NCAR & UCAR for both graphs
    http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/

    Either one or the other (or both) was “adjusted” out of sight of the other,
    scientists are much more careful with data in 2000 than they were in 1975,
    reading glass technology improved the ability to read temp logs,
    or there is more than one Earth. Are there other reasons?

    I’m leaning toward there being more than one Earth, since modern science has me pretty convinced there is more than one Arctic Ocean.

  68. Alvin (21:57:03) :

    rukidding pasted (21:44:02) :
    Why do we need 15 models for global warming

    Apparently having only 12 all wrong might draw suspicion

    Our boy from Corsham has a method for solving x in the equation x = 2 + 2 from 15 random numbers. Watch the video in the middle of this page, there are some highly illuminating throw away phrases in this monologue IMHO.

    Maybe someone should produce another entitled “The physics that we don’t know yet” (within or without the context of a ‘Third Culture’ beyond the scientific revolution).

  69. An article about Denis Dutton who’s webpage I referenced
    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    “Dutton believes that we could be seeing something known as an “informational cascade” — in crude terms, a herd instinct in which we don’t want to risk being seen as wrong, so we agree with what is widely taken as right. A sceptical US scientist, John Christy, also believes that this has happened to fellow scientists in the global-warming debate.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/lifestyle/mainlander/248382

  70. matty (22:56:07) : “Enjoyed it all, but would have liked more discussion on legality/implications of signing…So how radical is Obama? Would he wing it, and could congress pull him up if he did? Still not clear to me as I’m not a full bottle on international treaties.”

    Radical isn’t the word, Matt. Maniacal would more accurately describe Obama, and yes, he’s maniacal enough to do so against anything the Congress should (but probably will not) say on the matter. So that’s really a moot point. True, many of our representatives are not for this legislation, even if they are AGW-believers. But I will not make the mistake of trusting them after what they did last year with the bank bailouts. The U.S. Constitution has A LOT to say about that, but here we are today with the banking system propped up at the taxpayers expense. All they have to be told is that doing so will save the economy, and the opposition will drop low enough to let anything pass and continued ignoring of the supreme law of the land to be sustained and grown.

  71. Putting science aside, this Energy Bill is being sold as a solution to “Independence of Foreign Energy”. This “Energy Bill” is welfare for Wall Street. It will not make us less dependent on “foreign energy” but it will make us dependent on foreign Carbon Credits. How stupid is that?

  72. >>>According to Lord Mockton 90% of Brittan’s laws are
    >>>made by commisars who they dont elect and they dont
    >>>hold to account! They are made in secret and the British
    >>>Parliament is made to pass it. It has no option but to do so.

    Yup. Laws are now made in Europe, not Westminster. Although Europe may hold elections, the European parliamentarians do not make they laws. They are made by the Council of Ministers, the ‘secret commissars’, and these laws are then handed to the parliamentarians to debate.

    Europe is NOT democratic – there is no accountability. We cannot vote out a commissar.

    .

  73. pwl (20:53:31)
    See Professor Ian Plimer on ocean acidification.Rain+clay= an acid consuming process.We can’t have acid seas while plate techtonics are active and we don’t run out of rocks.

  74. What’s needed next is a series of shows that critically examines each separate claim of the warmers, one episode per week (or fortnight, or month) by John Stossl of Fox. He’d do a bang-up job. Such a series is long overdue.

  75. NilFormNYC (19:02:30)
    “Heat cannot transfer from cold bodies to hot ones.” No, but cold bodies can act as insulating blankets towards heat loss from hot bodies! On and on it goes.
    Please use common sense. Ask yourself, were in nature is water and water vapor a “positive feedback” to the source of “heat”?

    ‘No, but cold bodies can act as insulating blankets towards heat loss from hot bodies! On and on it goes.’

    Do me a favor. This winter go outside wearing only a pair jeans and a t-shit and feel how fast your body cools down and then explain to me how “cold” acts as an insulator to “hot”. Take that one step further. Jump in the shower wearing your jeans and t-shirt then go outside. I’ll bet a dime to a doughnut that you will get “colder” “faster” as the “cold sucks the “heat” out of your wet body.

  76. This presentation is flawed simply by being on the Glenn Beck show. Obama’s henchmen? Please.

    I am a global warming skeptic. I also believe that associating with Glenn Beck is a bad idea for credibility reasons.

  77. Great stuff and Monkton is most eloquent, but what was his role with Mrs Thatcher and her promotion of the CO2

  78. Sorry my machine was too eager to send the message before I had finished — more likely I hit teh wrong button.

    My question is: what was Lord Monkton’s role as scientific adviser to Mrs Thatcher when she was so eager to be involved in the CO2 question?

  79. Glenn (02:40:43) :
    “Dutton believes that we could be seeing something known as an “informational cascade” — in crude terms, a herd instinct in which we don’t want to risk being seen as wrong, so we agree with what is widely taken as right.

    This is so true. Just think of all of the people invested in “Al Gore is right.” Where do they go with this buffoon now? Saving face is a huge political motivation. Every time someone invested in “Al Gore is right” goes to the polls, they have to confront their own demons, and I bet most of them don’t have the nerve to admit they were so wrong, or wronged.

  80. NikNYC and Manuel

    By your words you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issues. I could go on to say that the planet has warmed has cooled and all that but it would be a waste of time.

    Yours sincerely
    Stephen Richards BSc phyics, MSc physic MInst Ph MAPM etc

  81. I always wondered how someone like Hitler came to power. Was anyone warninng the masses about his intentions? Did he take power little by little so as to not notice? I do know this, there were warning signs and no one paid attention.

  82. Blueridge, some did pay attention. Now Churchill had a speech impediment. Most of his life he must have had to contend with the danger of simply being rubbished and sidelined. That worked right into his soul. Churchill learned to speak from a place of profound depth that was still warm, human, and familiar. I see Monckton doing something similar, hats off to him. In fact, I see something similar happening to a lot of us.

    Bryn, Monckton may have been a warmist once, as many of us here were. But his role of detecting fraud in science (google him) may have meant that he was one of the first to realize that Thatcher’s stance was deceitful and could never hold up in the long run.

  83. Bulldust (03:35:50) :
    “der kommissar geht um”

    Yeah, but whose liberty is being handled? :-) Good vid BTW, maybe there’s an “after the fire” of AGW reference here …

  84. Molon Labe (23:05:11) :

    It was a spectacular performance by Lord Monckton. It was hilarious watching Beck and Bolton trying to understand the graphs.

    I think you under estimate Glenn. From what I have seen watching his show, he does not put anything on the air that he has not spent a considerable amount of time getting a handle on.

    That was an entertainer, creating a comfortable environment for his viewers (who in many cases had no clue what those charts meant). It allowed the average viewer to be comfortable that they did not understand them at a glance, and created a logical segue for Lord Monckton to elaborate on what they mean without being in lecture mode and tuning out his audience.

    One of the reasons Glenn Beck is so popular, is that he has the ability to condense complex subjects down into simplified capsules of information that the average viewer can quickly grasp. He then tells them to go out and study the issue themselves. He reminds me of some of my Civics and History teachers in the 1960’s, he gives folks enough information to allow them to grasp the basic considerations and implications, without smothering them with detail. The interesting thing about his show, is he actively encourages his audience to do their own homework and learn about the topics on their own. He gives them permission to be active learners, rather than zombies that just accept at face value any pronouncement that comes down from on high from the MSM or the political spin doctors of all stripes.

    A TV show is not an ideal situation for learning, you have to shrink topics into manageable bites of information, that reach across a huge range or educational and intellectual levels. He uses satirical humor, both to lighten the mood and to communicate ( which I note many of his opponents are oblivious to ), which as has been posted previously they tend to not have any sense of humor.

    Larry

  85. My Lord,

    I am very impressed with the job you have undertaken. However, I do not think it is quite as simple as “30B tons raises concentratration 2ppm/year so 15B tons increases it only 1ppm/year.” That would seem to indicate that 0 tons would make the concentration level stable, and that, I believe, is not accurate.

    Otherwise, excellent job.

  86. hhhmmmmm. still learning. ‘despots’ was supposed to be the hyperlink, not the entire post. can someone fix that?

  87. I am a big fan of Monckton.

    Mainly because he is actually using the science to demostrate where the models and the theory are wrong.

    It is one thing to say temperatures are not increasing, but we really have to also show where the theory went wrong and why it is not accurate.

    A lot of scientists are convinced by it (and some are just along for the ride) but the global warming ship can only be righted with an alternative/a better explanation/an exploration of the actual facts.

    That is one reason why I am doing the series on the paleoclimate. If the theory was correct, it should have been reflected in the history of the climate and it is not. We need to incorporate other factors.

  88. Glenn Beck (I like the guy) has the good judgement to invite Monckton but his comments about the proposed reform of the healthcare system are hopelessly antiquated. Everybody is covered in Western Europe to a certain extent and the medical cost per capita considerably less than that in the current US system. Health care, like education, is a basic human right and has nothing to do with socialism as so many American seem to think.

  89. I love Glenn Beck . He is the only one exposing this Marxist takeover of the USA. What credibility issues? Has any thing he has ever said been refuted by the White House? Perhaps he has to exagerate to get his points across because he is a lone voice on television
    I wish there was someone like Glenn Beck to expose the Marxist takeover here in Brazil (where I live )or in England ( where I come from). The people of the USA still have some freedoms because of your Constitution .
    Look at the rest of the world and see how freedoms have been curtailed and socialist big governments installed . A revolution has taken place with nary a shot being fired.

  90. Gary (19:45:44) :

    Am I merely a pessimist? No way. I’ve been deeply involved in politics for a long time. This ongoing Left/Right nonsense will destroy America. It is the Left/Right punch of the same monster: Big Government. And there’s no end in sight.

    this quote could have come from Glenn Beck Gary. I assume you really never watch Glenn and just assume he is strictly a right wing nut but if you watch his show he takes on all people who are after big government ruling our lives regardless of right/left affiliation. watch the show and maybe you will have your eyes opened.

  91. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    “As a chemist following this debate I’m afraid the skeptical side is lacking in ability to clear this sort of thing up. One big hit to my ability to trust the skeptics at face value is how the SurfaceStations.com effort, although a very cool example of folk science at work…fails to itself provide nor link to the simplest result a curious observer would require:
    The graph of overall temperature vs. the graph of data only from the absolute best stations! My desire for info went on for months.”

    Uh, there is no such thing as “best stations”. The best would be the same stations not changing and consistently reporting over time. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of this very simple concept.

    “Then I happened to run into an NOAA paper that provided this exact thing and showed *no* difference between the two graphs! Hello, *not* a good thing to withhold instead of owning up to it. The entire thrust of the Surface Stations project, namely the theory that heat island effects put temperature data in doubt, was negated.”

    You’re joking, right? That the same “exact” result is arrived at with a smaller group of stations could have various explanations. Not however, as the same accuracy of an account of temperature over a wide geographical area.

    How do you know Anthony withheld what you claimed to have found at NOAA?

    I suggest you run back before your seat is taken under the bridge.

  92. To Tor Hansson (03:51:39) and all the others who make similar ad hominen attacks: “This presentation is flawed simply by being on the Glenn Beck show. Obama’s henchmen? Please. I am a global warming skeptic. I also believe that associating with Glenn Beck is a bad idea for credibility reasons.”

    (ad hominen – Merriam Webster online. 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made)

    Lighten up. What we need is investigative journalism and a variety of points of view. We have so little of the former today and Glenn Beck is providing some of it. Why did Van Jones resign? Are there “revolutionaries” in the White House? If so, do they want a “world government”? Are they against capitalism and a “free(r) market economy? Do they want cap-and-trade to diminish or destroy the “current America” so they can have their “hope-and-change” America? Pretty important stuff. Worth taking a good look at.

    Hold your nose and open your eyes — and your mind. The dedication to the scientific method — skepticism, validity, reliability, repeatability, and, especially, falsibility are on the line. Do you want to do away with all that?

  93. _Jim (20:47:39) :

    NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    As a chemist following this debate …

    Is this the source of your ‘trouble’, bucky? –

    – perhaps more of an ‘out of depth issue’, re: physics vs chemistry, radiational physics vs chem reagents and ph balance?

    Also as a chemist, I’ll have to remember that the next time I hear a former theology student comment on ocean acidification.

    But in the general area of “only experts can contribute”, this is an interesting read.

    http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?cid=5222b62e-4a1b-4fb2-bf6e-a38e263dee49

  94. If Stossl does a series on AGW, it should not try to have a lot of high production values (time-consuming and expensive). It should simply be a series of lectures interwoven with interviews (using videoconferencing where convenient) examining in scientific detail each of the major CAWGer claims and CAWGer “rebuttals” of skeptical objections to them.

    It shouldn’t aim at allowing warmists equal time; instead, they should be offered an equal amount of air time to broadcast their own show. In order to avoid giving warmists an opportunity to riposte by making a mountain out of a molehill, etc., care should be taken in the first place to avoid making easily rebut-able statements; and warmist claims that are in doubt, or that our side has no answer for, should not be brushed aside, but given their due.

    After the warmists produce their rebuttal series, Stossl can have another go at them with a counterpoint series. This tennis match could go on for a decade–but that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Society has needed this conversation for decades already.

  95. Richard (21:59:05) :

    “It is all about our freedom – all our freedoms. Not only America – but the freedom of the peoples of all western democratic nations. That is what is under attack and in jeopardy”.

    If the US and Europe opt for the 80 – 95 reduction in CO2 emissions and transfer power to the UN, this will be the end of the free world, economy down, middle class destroyed, no money to pay for the military.

    The only thing Russia has to do is is adapt to Communism and the win the Cold War, 20 years after they lost it. Stalin is polished up already and the Russians are charmed from the Chinese Communist System.

    Do you see how stupid we are!

  96. Beck and Monckton are a perfect match; pompous populists. Believe me, they are NOT a asset the to skeptic scientists.

    And Bolton, well he’s just a moron.

  97. See the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty

    Environmentalists are seeking to force nations to pay, regardless of the science or the portion of anthropogenic to natural causes.

    Note especially:

    FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 Page 18, 19 “Options”

    38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

    (b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.… (Page 18)

    Government = non elected bureaucrats
    “financial mechanism” = TAXATION WITHOUT representation.

    36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.

    I.e. imposed perpetual tribute regardless of the economy, where
    Assure = enforcement mechanism.

    17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
    (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
    (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

    FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 Page 133:

    Alternative 2: Funding for the Multilateral Fund for Climate Change (defined below in para. 56, Option 3) shall be provided by the following sources:
    Option 1
    Alternative 1:
    An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5–1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5–1 per cent of GDP]].

    Social network BreakItApart is summarizing the Climate Treaty

    See Chuck Norris Essay on Copenhagen


    HAS ANYONE READ THE COPENHAGEN AGREEMENT?
    U.N. plans for a new ‘government’ are scary. by Janet Albrechtsen

    Contrast Ross McKitrick’s T3 Tax as a Policy Strategy for Global Warming
    which varies positive AND NEGATIVE with the actual change Tropical Tropospheric Temperature.

  98. NikNYC-

    You raise the conventional dismissal of Lindzen’s paper. The paper is looking at variations in radiative loss versus changes in sea surface temperatures. To detect this feedback parameter, he carefully chose the time frame to be long enough for feedback processes to be active, but short compared to the time needed for the climate to regain equilibrium. This was them compared to the identical predictions from various climate models.

    He specifically references the paper on the corrections (Wong 2006), as well as other corrections made to the database. It is clear that he looked at this in detail. Since the Wong correction is for orbital decay compromising the field of view, it is a decadal correction, and would not influence the results in Lindzen’s paper. The other impact of the correction seems to be a reduction in peak-to-peak variabiity, but as Lindzen points out, it is hard to justify how a decadal orbital decay would affect monthly peak-to-peak variability.

    Anyways, always good to ask the questions about data quality. But, it appears this correction has little or no impact on the results published by Lindzen et al.

  99. The average residence time of human-emitted CO2 before it is re-absorbed is an interesting question, but is it the right question to ask? This approach assumes that once a given molecule is absorbed from the atmosphere it remains in its new home indefinitely, which is most definitely not the case. Carbon is constantly flowing in and out of the various sinks and sources. Burning coal,oil or gas releases carbon from a long term reservoir into the atmosphere. The individual molecules of CO2 will then be re-absorbed into another reservoir, the oceans or forests, say. But this ‘extra’ C increases the concentration in those reservoirs and so alters the rate at which C flows between the reservoir and the atmosphere. In fact these molecules will flow between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs until sequestered into a long-term reservoir, such as carbonate rocks.

    So to understand how it is that CO2 concentrations are increasing, rather than deriving a figure for the average residence time of emitted CO2 molecules, it makes more sense to ask

    ‘By how much and for how long are atmospheric CO2 concentrations affected by a given pulse of emitted CO2, compared to the case where the pulse was not emitted?’

    This question was answered by taking an analytic approach to the Bern carbon cycle in a paper in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (citing Joos et al., 1996; Shine et al., 2005.)

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf (Figure 9)

    and the answer is that, while concentrations initially drop rapidly, the curve has a long tail: 22% is still airborne after 500 years and 19% after 1,000 years.

    Viscount Monckton might have more luck with getting onto the mainstream media if he corrected some of the errors in his more scientific output. For example he has yet to reply to these substantive points about his APS essay on Climate Sensitivity :

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

  100. Re: Tor Hansen

    03:51:39) :

    “This presentation is flawed simply by being on the Glenn Beck show. Obama’s henchmen? Please.

    I am a global warming skeptic. I also believe that associating with Glenn Beck is a bad idea for credibility reasons.”

    And so, Tor, who in the MSM would put Lord Monckton on?

    You should really be thanking Beck and Fox, which is the most watched cable news network.

  101. David Gladstone (21:49:32) :

    Lindzen’s work is what made the show; There was too much talk about titles, which should be offensive to Americans, “I don’t recognize no stinkin’ titles”! His name is Christopher Monckton, and he is pompous and self-aggrandizing, but he was pretty good as far as it goes.

    Are Americans really so shallow as to worry about who conveys the message, rather than what the message says? I doubt it. Pompous and self-aggrandizing bother me only when combined with a sycophant twit, and Monchton is neither.

  102. Here is some simple logic that (hopefully) most people with a scientific background will undertand.

    The oceans surface temparatures in the tropics have been increasing during the later part of the 20th century. The air above the tropical oceans has increased in temperature as well. Now imagine for a second that we just accept that the atmosphere/oceans are getting warmer because of increasing levels of CO2 bolstered by strong positive feedback due to water vapor etc.

    What are some of the net effects of this gradual heating upon the air in the troposphere?

    The first thing that will happen is that warming will be spread uniformally throughout the troposhere, since the temperature at all levels in the troposphere are linked by the wet-adiabatic lapse rate. This simply due to the fact that the rate at which moist air cools as it is moved to higher altitude is fixed by the atmospheric physics.

    Now, it is well know that specific heat capacity (SHC) of air in the upper troposphere is significantly lower than the SHC of air in the lower troposphere, since the SHC of air drops off with decreasing air density.

    What this is telling you is that similar amounts of heating will warm up the air faster in the upper troposphere (with a lower SHC) than the lower troposphere (with a higher SHC). The net effect of this is that it should produce a temeprature anomaly hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere.

    [Note: The temperature anomaly hot-spot is the result of a warming atmosphere and it would be present irrespective of the source of that warming. However, for arguements sake we are assuming that the warming
    is being produced by CO2 that is being amplified by a postive H2O feedback loop.]

    However, the observed data conclusively shows no such temperature anomaly hot-spot exists. So what is wrong with the CO2 arguement?

    Simple, there is a slight warming due to CO2 but it is NOT being amplified by a positive H20 feedback loop.

    Why isn’t there a positive H20 feed back loop? Because it would require a increase in the specific humidity of the air (i.e. the amount of water vapor per kilogram of air) in the upper troposhere over the tropics, and this is in direct contradiction to the actual observations.

    See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/

    Trends in middle-[level] and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data

    Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology
    Volume 98, Numbers 3-4 / October, 2009

    who find that:

    “….the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. “

  103. How did Hitler rise to power? Read Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here” written around 1936 if I remember. His book is credited for stopping fascism here. It has its strange aspects compared to how well written (edited???) his other early books were, but he was passionate and did save the day for us …for awhile.

    Tor, I think you are accurate. Using FOX just cements in the idea that skeptics are nutters. How can they get this so right, yet be wrong about so many other aspects of what is going on in the world?

  104. David Gladstone (21:49:32) :

    Lindzen’s work is what made the show; There was too much talk about titles, which should be offensive to Americans,

    If Al Gore never had the title ‘vice president’ who would have listened to him??

  105. ” I also believe that associating with Glenn Beck is a bad idea for credibility reasons.”

    What the heck!! Monckton’s presentation needs to be made public. Glenn Beck’s show is one way of doing that. It reaches millions of people. Hopefully that show will stir up an even bigger debate. If there is some other show more to your liking then get them to have Monckton on. Otherwise just be thankful for Glenn Beck’s show.

  106. Lucy Skywalker (03:48:31) :

    Nice to see Monckton so relaxed.

    Maybe it has something to do with knowing the truth and the truth setting him free.

    —————————–

    from his presentation “Great Is Truth, and Mighty Above All Things”

    http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/24881.pdf

    “Go forth into the world in peace;
    “Be of good courage;
    “Hold fast to that which is good;
    “Render to no man evil for evil;
    “Strengthen the faint-hearted;
    “Support the weak;
    “Help the afflicted;
    “Honour all men;
    “Love and serve the Lord,
    “Rejoicing in the power of the Holy Ghost;

    “And the blessing of God Almighty,
    “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
    “Be upon you and remain with you always. Amen.”

    ~~Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  107. tj (09:18:35) :

    Using FOX just cements in the idea that skeptics are nutters.

    —————–

    What group of people exactly are you talking about to whom this cementing has happened?

  108. Squidly,

    Ah, but one thing I find interesting here, everyone seems to forget that the CO2 is only hanging around in the atmosphere for approximately 5yrs., so, you have to continually and inverse logarithmically, accelerate the additional CO2 emissions. You see, you pump CO2 into the atmosphere this year, and a portion is lost next year, and more the next year, etc…

    Yes, you are right. I forgot about that one. The calculation also implicitly assumes that the proportion of manmade CO2 emmssions that increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain equal in the future, or to put it another way that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is constant. I don’t see any reason why it should be so.

  109. Squidly,

    Therefore, you would have to reduce your “exponential” calculation perhaps exponentially, further, as you mention, CO2 has a diminish in return, which contributes even further to the problem of how to get to those CO2 levels to begin with.

    My “exponential” calculation only refers to the fact that the function that represents the “assumed” increase of CO2 of concentration in the future is exponential in the IPCCs report. I am not saying that this is true, only that to properly make the point Monckton tries to make, you have to take that into account in your calculation.

    On the other hand. I totally agree with you. As it has been said before in this very blog, if a new ice age was going to come and Mr. Gore were to won another Nobel prize for asking us to deliberately increase CO2 concentration to 800+ ppmv in the next 90 years, I am not totally certain that we would be able to do it.

  110. People who believe that Barack Obama is out to turn the United States into a Marxist dungeon are raving idiots that need to move out of the Unabomber’s cabin.

    Global warming is about hysteria, not socialist plots. Glenn Beck is a certified nut. He does not help the cause. He cries on command, for Pete’s sake.

  111. Stephen Richards,

    By your words you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issues. I could go on to say that the planet has warmed has cooled and all that but it would be a waste of time.

    Could you please ellaborate your point? All I was trying to do was to perform a high-school algebra analysis of Mr. Monckton excellent dissertation.

  112. The figure of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is the total global output not the total human output. The entire “carbon footprint” of the whole of the human race is a mere 8 (some say 6) billion tonnes which equates to 4.1 ppm per year.

    Plants need sunlight in order to consume CO2 and as more than approximately 60% of the Earths surface is in perpetual darkness, this causes CO2 to fluctuate up and down like a giant sine wave. From peak to trough the difference in natural CO2 usage and production by plants, organisms, oceans and land masses, can vary by more than 100 ppm in any 24 hour period. Yet the daily maximum of human CO2 emissions is less than 0.0112328767123288 of a single part per million.

    In order for a substance such as CO2 to absorb heat or IR energy it must also re-emit that energy equally. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    Or simply consider this:
    If there was a substance in our atmosphere that could trap in heat, it would produce a net energy increase in the climate system. As this would have to be a fundamental law of thermodynamics (which it is not) then this situation would have always occurred and therefore the Earth would have experienced a net energy increase from the year dot and so would have over heated billions of years ago. Or at any time through out history when CO2 levels have been much higher than todays historically low levels.

    In other words CO2 does not trap but rather simply absorbs and then re-emits heat. Having absorbed heat, any and all atmospheric gasses rapidly expand and due to the process of convection quickly rise up towards the freezing depths of space. But before they get too high, at approximately 5,000 meters (cloud level) they re-emit the IR energy and then once again become heavy and dense, falling back toward the ground. Due to the second law of thermodynamics the IR energy emitted continues on out into space never to return. This effect can only be described as temperature regulation.

    The following is a quote from the NASA Earth Observatory program, CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System).
    “Averaged over the entire globe, the Earth system neither stores nor emits more energy than it receives from the Sun.”

    A substance that does not emit much energy will be a substance that does not absorb much energy such as certain plastics and rubbers. These types of substance are useful for insulating such things as wiring carrying electrical energy. The ability of a substance to insulate is not the same as trapping energy. In order to trap energy a substance must first absorb energy. But since all substances that absorb energy, always without exception re-emit equally there is no naturally occurring substance we know of which can trap heat energy.

    The fact is that there is no substance known to man that possesses the ability to trap in heat. If there was we would not need to use thermos flasks and we certainly would not need to buy our energy from large corporations but instead we could take this heat trapping substance and paint our roofs with it.

    AGW is a scam and the proof is billions of years of life on Earth. Without this temperature stability we could never have had the time to evolve from single celled organisms into human beings. We are living proof that the Earth enjoys relative temperature stability, the climate is extremely robust and our annual 4.1 ppm in CO2 emissions is not only insignificant but totally irrelevant.

    [snip – please no more use of WUWT as self promotion ]

  113. If Glnn Beck has know credibility regarding the marxist leanings of Obama and associates why has the White House not refuted his comments? Why did they get rid of Van Jones? Why hasn’t Anita dunn disavowed her prediliction for the phlosophy of Mao Tse Tung? Global warming isn’t anbout Climate it’s about socialist control!

  114. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
    Millions of people on the fence will be storming the web in the next week or two, looking into the background of the Lindzen paper and that single soundbite will make them hardened in their view of Beck and skeptical spokesmen as utter loons.

    Nik, you should be aware by now that part of the case against the alarmists is their addiction to alarm and exaggeration.

    It is unlikely that more than a thousand people will actually read Lindzen’s paper and understand it. Monckton’s warnings about loss of sovereignty and supremacy of our Constitution will make a far greater impression.

    It is amusing that Lord Monckton refers to the 11 climate models as “Play Stations and X-Box 360s.” Does he suggest IPCC models are the work of pencil-necked geeks gaming a sim?

  115. GENE NEMETZ

    thanks for your response but i’m afraid i don’t quite understand. did you mean believe “data” (in general) or his (Lindzen’s) data. Monchton was unequivocal that the the issue was settled by Lindzen’s report, but others point out that he used “old data” . what does that mean ?
    i understand that he compared 20 yrs of actual measurements with those that were predicted by numerous modellers. in geological terms, 20 yrs isn’t even chump change.

  116. I want to believe! It’s just that I cannot in good faith offer debating points that I have not rigorously vetted to the thousands of Instapundit and other blog readers who are pointed to AGW articles each month that have comment sections I can ad to and thus myself reach thousands of non-scientists.

    Props to those who were critical to of my statements since I agree with each of them in a way, except the silly ones that think a chemist is a lesser bad ass than a physicist, which I agree with in one way only, namely that they are better data crunchers but a chemist is usually better at understanding systems at a gut level while testing his understanding with cold hard scientific rigor to keep him honest.

    I don’t discount the idea that carbon rationing is insane. I merely don’t think Monckton’s blackboard argument was simple enough for the demographic audience. He would have to use a metaphor instead of numbers with obscure sounding units. Do they sound obscure to me? That’s not the point I was making. I was thinking of how it would sound to Beck’s audience. I note that Beck himself did a double take in response to it.

    Do I think water creates major positive feedback? No way. I mean it *might*, just as cholesterol intake *might* be the cause of heart disease. But cholesterol in the blood is NOT a foreign substance but in fact one of the key elements in cell wall structure and is thus highly regulated. The Earth has not turned to Venus in the past either. But what is the science behind CO2 that can produce an argument that laymen can really sink their teeth into? Does it exist? I honestly don’t yet know. I do know that a dirt simple version of it that stands up to scrutiny has not yet been created, for were that so I would by now have ran into it.

    My point is that the college textbook argument I ran into that there are no greenhouse gas effects at ALL that was included in a big list of peer reviewed “skeptics articles” was in fact an argument in a vacuum that quickly fell apart. Thus I am STILL searching for an argument that the so-called “greenhouse” effect is extremely mild at best. The argument that a “cold” sky can’t slow the escape of heat from the ground simply because the ground is “hot” seems ridiculous though especially since air physically mixes between lays via a series of cylindrical spiral currents that form adjacent bands from the equator to the poles.

    I wont think out loud here for ten pages about this.

    The serious and competent reason that I am searching for SIMPLE explanations is so I can use them as arguments to convince people with no science background. This quest risks having myself come off as being a simpleton, I now realize!

    However, there has been NO serious response to my main point though and that is worrisome. Even if the adjustments to the ERBE are questionable, I still want to know *what* effect they have on the result. What happens to the little line graph? I cannot in good faith spin a simple soundbite worthy argument from this if I know that the results are in fact utterly incomplete. Merely citing the adjustment paper a proper discussion does not make! Merely *having* doubts that are expressed conspiratorially is NOT an act of doing good science.

    This sort of thing feels like that SNL skit in which the customer asks over and over until he’s screaming: “What’s the price of the car, Al?!?!?!”. Then Al goes into another round of this and that while not telling the price again.

    What is the effect of the well-accepted and so far officially uncontroversial data adjustment on the temperature dependent flux graph?!?!?!

    Similarly: Watt’s the price of poor station placement, Anthony?!?!?!?

    The NOAA has done the half-hour work of averaging the best stations at SurfaceStations.org and it bluntly negates the heat island effect hypothesis that says over time heat island effects taint not just absolute temperature but temperature *trends* as well in the form of temperature anomalies. The theory that parking lots and airports somehow all turn into Tokyo over time seems far fetched but certainly possible. I was convinced that Anthony had a trump card of an article coming up that showed a totally different trend instead of a near match which I now highly suspect is the case. I especially suspect this since if he *was* sitting on such a radical result I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t instead plaster it all over his site by *now*. In fact it seems he is carrying out the political act of withholding this half-hour of work exactly because it would honestly negate the propaganda effect of the station images themselves. That’s dirty pool and does indeed equate with the action of “Big Tobacco”.

    So what *do* the top quality stations show compared to the overall network if raw unadjusted data is used instead of adjusted data (as has been without evidence been the accusation against the NOAA)?

    What’s the price of the car, Al?

    These are minor points that become major due to the quite reasonable bad impression they give when they are not addressed. Having to discard the “bad temperature stations” argument will not cripple one’s ability to convince blog readers to start doubting AGW. But *if* the result is as the NOAA claims it is then the lack of owning up to it is damaging indeed to my ability to avoid all discussions degenerating into a barrage of VALID points against my argument.

  117. Re ocean acidification:

    http://www.us-ocb.org/Microbes%20and%20ocean%20acidification.pdf

    quote Our understanding of basic marine microbial physiology is inadequate to answer some
    important questions involving the consequences of ocean acidification. For example,
    most phytoplankton species regulate internal pH, which is generally maintained below
    the pH of seawater, but it is not known how well other marine microbes control pH, nor
    if a change in external pH will affect this process. Elevated CO2 levels increase
    photosynthesis rates in some but not all microbial species, and laboratory studies
    suggest that marine nitrogen fixation may also be enhanced. Carbonate ions – the
    building block for calcium carbonate shells – will decline in a high-CO2 world. The
    mechanisms involved in the biological formation of carbonate shells are not well
    understood, and there is conflicting evidence that shell formation rates could either
    increase or decrease under future elevated CO2. unquote

    So, next time someone tries to frighten you about lower pH, tell them to read the experts. Basically, the science is not yet settled.*

    Re the topic: the scientists who have promoted their… let’s just say ‘dubious’ mathematics to holy swsrit are in a very difficult position. they are riding the tiger and darenn’t get off. They need a way out. My suggestion is to nuance thngs a bit, express the odd doubt and then run for the door. The first to do this will survive and may even write their names into the history of science. Those who don’t…

    JF
    *The BBC website has some pretty pics on the science and technology section. Included is a pic of a sea otter with the usual ‘shells are dissolving, the end of the otter is at hand’ line. I emailed them with the page ref. above but no reply. maybe a few other UKers might try.

  118. NikFromNYC,

    On the Lindzen old dataset (ERBE), I am sure I saw somewhere a graph where ERBE was spliced with the later CERES data.

    On the UHI effect, there have been papers written that say the UHI effect is real and has been allowed for as part of the normalizing that the data undergoes. This is the official IPCC, GISS and HADCRUT position. However, the whole point of surfacestation.org was to uncover another and more insidious issue – bad siting. Bad siting is unique to each station and as such absolutely cannot be allowed for, simply because the institutions that normalize the data do not have any meta data about each site.

    Hope this helps.

  119. Tor Hansson,

    “Glenn Beck is a certified nut.”

    Certified by whom? Do you have a reference (eg citation from a psychiatrist or somebody qualified)?

  120. When can we see Lord Monckton on BBC? I would love to see him debate one of the chuckle brothers (Ed Milliband) or that other lordship, Lord Stern, although I suspect him to be one of those do-it-yourself lords as opposed to a member of the aristocracy.

  121. Tor Hansson (11:26:20) : “People who believe that Barack Obama is out to turn the United States into a Marxist dungeon are raving idiots that need to move out of the Unabomber’s cabin.”

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5399

    “Global warming is about hysteria, not socialist plots. Glenn Beck is a certified nut. He does not help the cause. He cries on command, for Pete’s sake.”

    If you’ve ever been to an actuall conspiracy site or forum, you’d realize that this program did no such thing as cross into nut-case territory. Not even close. Nor did Beck break down into tears. We must have watched two different shows.

  122. Tor Hansson (10:39:30) :

    credibility

    Tor,

    What people will also be evaluating is your credibility.

    We can watch Glenn Beck and decide for ourselves what to think of him.

    We can read your comments and decide for ourselves what to think of you.

    And in my preliminary impression of you is that you are an ideologue of the left.

  123. OKE E DOKE (12:02:16) :

    Observation from 20 years work is quite a bit.

    I would estimate that not even 20 years of observational proof work has been done on Einstein’s General Relativity. But the amount of proof done so far has very closely verified it.

    So, I’d like to end it on that. But I will read any further replies you may have.

  124. Hotrod, your considered remarks re: Beck are spot-on. Those who don’t see the growing influence of his presence are in for a rude surprise. (And that’s fine by me.) The man is neither a clown nor a fool and his ratings will continue to grow and grow.

    I cannot remember anyone who has risen further and faster in visibility than Glenn and doubt that is an accident. Beck has learned from the master, Rush. What Rush realized long ago is that his opponents are not fazed by insult nor by being demonstrated wrong. What they cannot abide is ridicule and both Rush and Glenn have mastered the method.

    Bravo for the show, kudos to Lord M and patriot Bolton for their insights. Hoi Polloi, you picked your own handle; how appropriate.

    Larry

  125. It’s one thing to have a title for a function such as VP; it’s quite another to claim a title based upon ancestry; our revolution ended all that here so lets not see this bowing and scraping like Glenn Beck did yesterday; it’s genuinely disgusting to see this kind of thing. Moncton is only a viscount and not a Lord for Pete’s sake!

  126. NikFromNYC (12:06:53) : “…this half-hour of work…”

    Nik, I’d suggest:

    Step 1 – Get the RAW data (CLIMOD) for NYC, and plot the mean temperature trend for the length of the dataset.

    Step 2 – Decide how to handle missing data, outliers, station moves and instrument changes.

    Step 3 – Repeat Steps 1 & 2 for 5 rural stations near NYC.

    Step 4 – Compare rural average mean trend to NYC trend. Difference = UHI?

    Step 5 – Repeat previous steps using Tmax and Tmin. Note contradictions.

    Step 6 – Repeat steps 1 – 5 using seasonal (or monthly) Tmax and Tmin trends. Note more contradictions.

    Step 7 – Attempt to explain. Correlations to station quality? latitude? elevation?
    precipitation? wind speed and direction? ecoregion differences? etc. etc. etc.

    I’ve done this for San Antonio, TX and it has taken a little more than 1/2 hour.
    I’m now scratching my head at Step 7.

    Being there seems to be almost chaotic regional effects, doing this analysis on a national level seems monumental. So stick your 1/2 hour of work, and try doing it yourself.

    Or I guess you could just homogenize Tmeans, while assuming there were no UHI effects or station quality issues.

  127. Moderators,
    Are you comfortable with the comment (07:18:55)?

    [Point. Deleted. I doubt it would be taken seriously, but you are right. ~ Evan]

  128. Benjamin (02:19:13) :

    But throughout they were saying “If Obama signs this…”

    What do they mean “if”? Of course he’s going to sign it,

    The White House has said that Obama won’t even be at Copenhagen. Instead he will be in Stockholm accepting his Nobel—happening at the same time. But after watching Mocknton I’m beginning to wonder if Obama will pop in at Copenhagen and say, “I was in the neighborhood, so I….”

    Stockholm and Copenhagen are only 325 miles (522 Km) apart.

  129. Glen Beck (and I hated him on connecticut radio) may be channeling Howard Beale, but I’ve yet to see anyone disprove what he’s shown on his show. I’m beginning to wonder if even a 21st century Krystallnacht will wake people up.

  130. I cannot stress enough my admiration for Monckton. Who else could have brought this UN governance ambition into stark limelight? Watching past lectures, he pitches to his audience with perfection, adding humour. He represents a formidable challenge to AGW extremism and political duplicity, and is exploiting every available opportunity he can to cut through the spun carbon fibre wall of media censorship that is rapidly enveloping us all, while we stand and wring hands. At least you have effective representational opposition. We dont.
    If he cant use Lindzen in support, who should he use?

  131. Gene Nemetz (14:24:09) :
    Stockholm and Copenhagen are only 325 miles (522 Km) apart.

    Wrong country. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway. Oslo is about the same distance from Copenhagen though.

  132. 220 feet you say, Smokey?
    We’d better get down to the beach quick, before the last pier goes underwater by April Fools day. That’s 22 feet per year.
    The waves will be licking at the Governator’s Mansion in Sacramento by Christmas 2010. Arnold will be furious….nah…he’s got an amphibious Hummer.
    The Golden Gate Bridge and the other bridges are goners, so SF is lost. Oops, that means Nancy is out of a job. Oh dear, no constituents.

  133. To Britannic No see..

    I don’t care what they put on TV, it doesn’t do anything at all. If people take time to read, that’s different. TV is mindless twaddle by design, perfect for 24/7 Bernaysian propaganda. If you want someone to pay attention, get a beautiful half-naked female and have her read it, or a Gekko with a Brit accent!

  134. Nik:

    I did not watch the monckton piece so I have no answer as to whether or not the ‘masses’ can be made to understand the fairly simple science that is laid out in Lindzen’s paper, but that certainly is not the point.

    You ask the question ‘what’s happens to the graph’ when the sat adjustments are made.

    Since you are familiar with physics and math, can you think of what kind of systemic defect in the satellite would cause the rank order of the measurements to be upside down? Because this is in all likelihood what you need to have occur in order for the the slope of the fit to flip from positive to negative. So if you just look at the graph in a non parametric space, you can get the sign of the feedback even if you can not say for sure what is the magnitude. Without a negative sign as is presented in the models AGW as it is modeled is cooked.

  135. Ron de Haan (08:35:28) : Richard (21:59:05) :
    “It is all about our freedom – all our freedoms. Not only America – but the freedom of the peoples of all western democratic nations. That is what is under attack and in jeopardy”.

    If the US and Europe opt for the 80 – 95 reduction in CO2 emissions and transfer power to the UN, this will be the end of the free world, economy down, middle class destroyed, no money to pay for the military…

    Do you see how stupid we are!

    Indeed I do. Nations of sheep that’s what we are, being led like lambs to the slaughter.

    The most capitalist system in the world today is the Chinese. India a distant second. Europe is socialist and unproductive to the core. Totally uncompetitive against capitalist China, India or the developing nations like S Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia. America is bankrupt and in debt and rapidly heading that way.

    If your economy was tottering would you print and borrow more money or would you gird your loins and buckle down to hard work? Would you tax energy and energy generation, the very source and means by which you produce good, services and wealth or would you encourage it instead, like in China and India?

    Yes America will rapidly become a banana republic under these policies. With all its capital going towards servicing only part of the interest on its debt, while it gets evermore deeply into debt.

  136. Conference Announcement:
    On October 26 and 27, the Club of Rome will convene in Amsterdam for its 2009 annual Global Assembly. This year’s Assembly is the last of seven international conferences of the Club of Rome in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. Keynote speakers like NASA’s **James Hansen** and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev will address the interdependency of the climate, energy and economic crisis and the opportunities they offer for sustainable growth. Participate and join master classes of some of the world’s most influential thinkers and achievers. Together we will write the Amsterdam Declaration, proposing key ingredients for a **Global Green New Deal**, as a last message to Copenhagen.
    http://www.worldconnectors.nl/index.php?id=29&c=&n=104
    http://www.clubofrome.org/

    The Club of Rome and its members:
    http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

  137. NikFromNYC (12:06:53) :

    “[…] So what *do* the top quality stations show compared to the overall network if raw unadjusted data is used instead of adjusted data (as has been without evidence been the accusation against the NOAA)?

    What’s the price of the car, Al? […]”

    This fellow, in the link that follows, has a decent handle on the answer to your question if you care to spend an appropriate amount of time digesting what he’s found.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

  138. 220 foot sea level rise. Do we even have enough ice to do that? Seriously, someone enlighten me.

    One of the problems for Gore is with endless negotiations, people become habituated to the “crisis”, and people would rather wear floaties than pay more for fuel anyway so why don’t republicans go a bit harder on the costs of this mumbo. That is what is about to get underway here in Australia. So far it has been an ideological dreamboat, but a dollars and cents argument would get in the way. So far noone has had the courage to do that in an effective way because AGW became politically essential. Surely now it’s ripe to dissolve this with a financial argument.

  139. matty (17:03:14)

    foTo begin with, sea levels have been rising 4 feet per century since 10,000 years ago. Now they are rising less than a foot per century. During the 1st half of the 20th century they rose by 2mm per year and now they are rising 1.5mm per year. (How the figure decreases) Ice gathering around Antarctic and greenland will probably cause a decrease in net sea levels soon too, but that is never even looked at or mentioned.

    actually that should be 4 feet per century averaged out over 10,000 years so the great tumults would have been prior to the medieval period and in the biblical period, such as that around the time of Noah’s ark, probably caused by arctic from land melting.

    However, and its a big however: There is a flooded settlement 95 metres below sea level off the coast of Northern Turkey.

    At the last glacial maximum-some 15,000-20,000 years ago sea levels were 120 metres lower than today
    the issue of sea level rise is hardly relevent at present for these reasons but fairly relevant or so for over 10,000 years, especially since we’ve been going through global warming consistently from that period, though at a greatly reduced/negative rate today. ie, 3/4 of these 10,000 years were warmer than today, so it puts the present in its context. melting glaciers over this period relieved a land pressure of thousands of billions of tons which elevated depressed land. However, today more pertinent is the rate of thermal contraction or expansion, which tend to be local than eustatic, net ice coverage regarding loss and gain, dynamic ocean floor changes such as new ocean crusts etc, sediment increase, ocean flow changes, land decrease and increase as well as the gravitational forces which are local.

    When the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed, (about 720 billion tons) it was due to the sheer weight, as ridges like that protrude so much that they break under their own weight although something even that monumental has to be balanced against the gain to Antarctica over the same period, which is a net gain of ice. Ice accumulating over Antarctica continues both extensively and in terms of thickness. However, ice shelves float on water so displace the same amount of water and don’t contribute to sea level change. they spread offland under their own weight and flow off land into oceans. Greenland is a slightly diffrent story – its both thickening with ice sheet growth at the interior and melting at some coastal areas, but certainly not melting as much as the 1930’s or indeed the period when it was declared “Greenland”. In fact it has virtualy stopped melting altogether for the last 10 years. The previous glaciers were melting. Efectively, as it gets thicker and extends, it pushes ice outwards

    Its assumed that because the Arctic was warmer in the 30’s it contained a smaller ice coverage than the last 30 year period, but in all honesty, there is only a 30 year satellite period to judge its total extent.

  140. Also, landscapes change, ocean floors elevate and recede. Underwater volcanism – there are around 10,000 unerwater volcanoes – and quakes change the seabed, and such gives rise to huge underwater mountain ranges.. It sounds odd, but despite sea volume being the same over a given period, this so called solid is quite dynamic, ie, not static. Even over 10,000 years land levels have risen around 180 metres, (reputedly) mainly the northern hemisphere where most of the landmass is, due to the weight of glaciers receding. These glaciers carried vast amounts of sediment which increased sea floor levels. Were talking of hundreds of thousands of billions of tons of ice and sediment disappearing from lands, and this land elevation leads to/triggers other seismic events. Then there are other hydrothermal events..

    as it is at the moment: despite sea levels remaining fairly constant, the seas are shallower than they used to be – as ocean beds have gone through a net elevation, mainly sea spreading. in other words this mantle appears to be getting thicker

  141. matty (17:03:14) :

    I mean, the answer is: sea levels have effectively peaked or are reaching their optimum. Its unlikely that Antactica will melt. The average all year temperature is -37C. That means the temperature would have to increase more than 37C on annualaverage to give this most elevating global warming effect.

  142. David L Hagen(08:39:37)
    Re Your sum up of Copenhagen wording and intent, that “Government” =non elected bureaucracy and “financial mechanism” = taxation without representation.
    Wasn’t this the issue ,the historic Boston Tea Party, that triggered America’s War of Independence with Britain?
    Ironic if American citizens now permit this to take place by way of a Treaty without protest.

  143. NikFromNYC,

    Can I suggest that you reread Ninderthana (09:09:35) :

    This little missive is not some uneducated rant. It is based on solid atmospheric physics. Lindzen is not the only one who has show that the H20 feedback is strongly negative.

    You claim to be a chemist, so you should know that all of the global warming models are based on the assumption that the relative humidity of the warming troposphere is roughly constant. This means that the models predict that the specific humidity (i.e. the amount of water vapor per unit mass of air) is increasing – particularly in the upper troposphere.
    In fact the whole catastrophic CO2 global warming model depends on the specific humidity increasing to get the postive H2O feed-back.

    So what is actually happening? The exact opposite to what the models predict:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/

    Trends in middle-[level] and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data

    Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology
    Volume 98, Numbers 3-4 / October, 2009

    who find that:

    “….the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern latitudes.”

  144. Cultural differences aside–which were amusing to me because of my background–Chris was superb. His talk in Regina, Saskatchewan, and presumably similarly across Canada, covered some of the same points and was equally excellent. The mendacious assessment of the interview in The Guardian, by one Suzanne Goldenberg, bears no relation to the facts at all, and is typical of the media distortion so common in this subject, which become increasingly shrill as the facts are laid bare. Lest anyone think that Chris’ conspiracy theory–which admittedly makes many in North America uncomfortable–is implausible, they can simply read the draft Copenhagen treaty: is is all there in black and white.

  145. P Wilson (17:35:12) :
    There is a flooded settlement 95 metres below sea level off the coast of Northern Turkey.

    The coast of Northern Turkey is on the Black Sea, which was a much smaller lake until some thousands of years BC (exact time in dispute). Then the Mediterranean broke through and flooded the entire region up to normal sea level. So you can’t draw any conclusions about global sea level rise from the Black Sea.

  146. Gene Nemetz:

    The whole point, at least for skeptics like me, is to de-politicize the debate. That is what this site, for one, does quite well.

    Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate. He is a demagogue. He often lies and speaks half-truths. (Yes, he does. He said, on the air, that Mr. Obama has a hatred for white people. I guess that includes his mother, who was white.) Glenn Beck does not serve any useful purpose I can see for AGW skeptics.

    I am not saying Lord Monckton should not appear on Glenn Beck. Of course he can, provided he appears on a number of other shows as well, such as Olbermann, Maddow, Face The Nation, and whatever else can be mustered. But just appearing on Glenn Beck politicizes the issue, which in my mind is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.

  147. TOR HANSSON

    I believe that one must be invited to appear on Olberman or Maddow. What is the chance that Monckton would be invited to those shows ? “snowballs in hell” comes to mind. Or maybe the same as Gore accepting an invitation to appear on Glenn Beck. O’Reilly has openly invited Gore to appear — so far NADA!!
    As for Pax Obaminus’ feelings about white people—– I’d be more interested in his feelings about America, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter handy

  148. And one more thing: The United States was the main driver behind the establishment of the U.N. To say that the organization has been a disappointment to many is probably an understatement. Its main purpose is to spread just a tiny bit of aid and comfort to the poor, and to see if it is possible to make people stop fighting so much. (It was founded 1945, after all.)

    To have people shake in their boots of all the power that will be bestowed on the United Nations is nothing short of laughable. The U.N. constantly and repeatedly gets de-fanged to suit the needs of the member nations of the Security Council. To propose that we all of a sudden will see the U.N. rise to become the seat of world government is so much Randish hussy-talk.

  149. So OKE DOKE:

    You believe that Barack Obama hates America?

    All I can say is that I find the whole notion paranoid in the extreme. This is not meant to be impolite, but are you on any sort of meds?

    You may disagree with this Administration’s policies. Just don’t call it evil or inept. It is neither.

    This site is mostly about AGW, and some politics bleed into it for a variety of reasons. I enjoy this site for the very reason that it is fairly apolitical. When I see these kinds of opinions here I just shudder, and hope that they will continue to be outweighed by all the sober people who have the knowledge to educate a non-specialist like me on the science.

  150. NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :

    “So I wonder what the real result is, using the updated data?”

    I tried to find what has been done about the matter of corrections by Lindzen, and others already replied they are taken into account. But I would like you to look again at the figures in page 45 and 46 of Lindzen’s presentation in
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

    Note that there is no time scale. This is because he is plotting differences, Deltas of sea surface temperatures and deltas of outgoing long wave radiation.

    Differences are very good in eliminating first order callibration issues between sets of data.

  151. The Nobel Laureates take center stage in Stockholm on 10 December when they receive the Nobel Prize Medal, Nobel Prize Diploma and document confirming the Nobel Prize amount from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. In Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates receive their Nobel Peace Prize

    http://nobelprize.org/award_ceremonies/

    They receive in Stockholm and in Oslo.

    The Medal and Prize are different. I was not versed on this. I never have cared to be versed on this.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    Now I understand (IMO) part of why Richard Feynman didn’t like his Nobel.

    (I had other things to say about the Nobel. But I self snipped.)

  152. anna v (22:41:46) :

    I am hoping that this work by Richard Lindzen will catch on in the main stream of education some day. But I have this thought : Newton and Einstein had incompatible views on gravity. Einstein is right. Newton was wrong. But Newton’s view of gravity is still taught in elementary to high schools today.

    Lindzen has 20 years of data. He is right. Will it make it in to text books?

  153. Tor,

    I quite agree that the Obama administration is not un-American and is not evil.

    As to inept however, I think it depends on the subject. In organizing a campaign or a push for legislative support, it has been very good.

    But cash for clunkers was very poorly administered – ask any dealer. The decision to close dealers was arbitrary. The guy (Czar) who fired the GM Chairman is a Yale law student.

    ARRA (Stimulus) was signed 2/17/09 and included a 65% subsidy for COBRA health insurance coverage mandated to begin 3/1/09. The problem is that insurance is billed and paid in advance. Not only did the health industry have to reprogram in two weeks, but they had to go backwards and re-bill for March. To make matters worse, Labor Dept. and IRS guidelines did not come out until the end of April.

    Rush, rush, rush. In 35 years of advising industry on regulatory and compliance issues at no time has it been nearly this bad and I haven’t even started on the EPA.

    There are many other examples. Please note that I have made no comment on the policy – reasonable people can disagree. However, industry has had no reasonable opportunity to comply without an expensive and scrambled response. This is inept.

  154. Socialist always make claims about what are “rights”. For example, education is a right, healthcare is a right, housing is a right, food is a right. Now, if obtaining these rights requires the property of someone else, then we are all nothing but slaves. What about my right to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Do you mean to tell me that I have no rights if someone else decides they can just confiscate my property to obtain their rights. Too often “wants” become “needs” that become “rights”. I want new shoes, I need new shoes, I have a right to shoes. That is not freedom. Read “The Law” by Bastiat and tell me where he is wrong. Only a communist would find fault with the logic in “The Law”. And we all know how well communism works!

    If something you have a right to requires someone else’s labor, then it is not a right. The only right we have is the right to work for whatever we want or need. Your rights cannot demand effort from someone else. Rights are innate(i.e.,speech, self protection) , not something given to you by someone else.

  155. Mr. Haney, I understand your position, and agree in part. But in an ever more competitive world, some of these “rights” are more properly viewed as prudent investment. Maintaining international position will require a healthy and well-educated populace, just for starters.
    Towels, too. It’s a rough world out there. Everyone should know at all times where their towels are.

  156. I think Monckton did a terrific job! And the show was excellent and informative all around. Contrary to what some may think, I think the simple takeaway is this…

    (1)Climate treaty is bad, but our Senate will never confirm even if Obama signs it (after all, didn’t Clinton sign Kyoto?)

    (2)The climate models show the opposite of what the real earth is doing. That’s all that’s needed to know about the radiation charts.

    (3)No matter how much we try to cut our emissions, it won’t make much of a difference but will cost us enormously.

  157. The whole thing about rights is that personal awareness goes along way towards the effectiveness of a ‘good’ political system.

    So far, under a ‘good’ system, laws exist to restrict the aberrant actions of some citizens, whereas a much more evolved system would use the transgressions of citizens as a form of negative feedback. The system would ‘recognize’ the connection between ‘bad’ behaviour and the failings of the system itself.

    This is very analogous to parent/child relationships. Unfortunately even the most basic forms of verbal abuse are overlooked by the average parent (put downs, submission etc). Eventually the child reflects the teachings of the parent. In still not recognizing this mirroring, the problem exacerbates for the parent and thus becomes a form of positive feedback.

    This may appear off topic but lack of personal awareness is the key obstacle to a more libertarian society which is largely self governing and understands the causation of ‘crime’ instead of creating it.

    It has always occurred to me that politics is rather idealistic and always lacks the principle of wanting to improve society. I fear that in not finding equilibrium, we are destined to swing towards the left and the right forever.

  158. Would you describe yourself as a sceptic, Smokey?

    CORRECTION: Al Gore said 6 to 7 meters in his speech. We reported that as 67 meters. We have now rectified this in the copy.

    http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm

    So the 220ft was incorrect. What about the 10 years…

    “The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.
    Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres,

    So the 10 year time frame refers to an ice-free Arctic, this is at the pessimistic end of projections, but not impossible. I think Al Gore is aware that the Arctic is floating sea ice and so its melt has negligible impact on sea levels. The 6-7 metres refers to the complete melt of the land based ice sheets. Gore does not give a timescale for this, but it sure ain’t 10 years.

    A little more scepticism needed folks, especially about third-hand media reports of speeches…

  159. Phil Clarke, thanks for the update, I had not seen that. But given Al Gore’s typical statements, it didn’t seem surprising that he would make yet another ridiculous assumption. Even his corrected prediction of a 6 – 7 meter [a 20+ foot] rise in ten years seems outlandish. But that kind of alarmism has been extremely lucrative for Gore, so he continues to make claims like that.

    Recall also that in 1993 Gore predicted that climate catastrophe would occur within ten years.

    In the same article I linked above, Gore also stated that 40% of the North Pole ice cap has melted. I tend to be skeptical about that claim, too.

  160. Tor Hansson (22:21:49) :
    ‘So OKE DOKE:
    You believe that Barack Obama hates America?’
    Barack Obama does not hate America. He hates Free Market system. Just imagine, if back in the 60’s the government controlled IBM and some snot nose kid came up with a computer control system that allowed development of personal computer, would the government allow that kid to start his own business to compete with IBM? Or a film maker, in the 70’s, make a series of movies to over throw “Big Government”?

  161. Chris Schoneveld (06:24:14) :

    Glenn Beck (I like the guy) has the good judgement to invite Monckton but his comments about the proposed reform of the healthcare system are hopelessly antiquated.

    Sorta like the US Constitution? You do understand that silly little document lays out specifically what powers the Federal government has and that nothing closely related to “universal health care” is listed?

    This leads to two Constitutional options:

    (a) Amend the Constitution
    (b) Tackle universal health care at the State level (Amendment X)

    And that, my friend, is the complete basis for his position.

  162. old construction worker

    Mainly, I meant to address the possibility that Monckton would be invited to appear on Olberman or Maddow’s show. Gore has been invited to O’Reilly’s show.
    as to the president’s attitude toward America, I don’t know the man or what he “hates”. He doesn’t SEEM to have the same opinion of this country that i do.
    that– i DO know

  163. @NikFromNYC

    As a scientist you should know that it pays to find other sources when trying to verify data sets.

    The best sets to use are UAH and RSS satellite data – you can do your own cherry picking of data and trends to reinforce any of you own beliefs here :-

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/

  164. Even his corrected prediction of a 6 – 7 meter [a 20+ foot] rise in ten years seems outlandish. But that kind of alarmism has been extremely lucrative for Gore, so he continues to make claims like that.

    Please re-read the Maktoob article. Gore made no such predicition. You based your claim on a report on the American Thinker website, itself reporting on an account of the speech in the Business section of an Arab news site. Even so, its clear that in Gore’s words as reported, the 10 year timeframe refers to Arctic ice, which has no bearing on sea level. To my knowledge Gore has never put a timescale against the melting of the land based ice sheets, which is where the 7m sea rise originates.

  165. Message to the forum moderator/censor.

    Please be informed that I am not using your site to SELF promote but to promote the truth. I suspect that as you are so cosy with Monkton and that you keep sensoring my posts about him and his relationship with the Thatcher Government that truth is not your first concern. You may have these people fooled but I can see all your troll steering comity members as clear as day. At first you had me going there, I thought WUWT was a place to share ideas about the truth.

    Well it didn’t take long to see WUWT under the light. The pupose of this site is clear. Your job is the same as Monktons and your brief it, is clear to me is to cause the questioning minds to look in the wrong direction.

    The answer to this AGW fraud is simple as you well know. It is CO2. That is all we need to talk about and that is what my book is about. It is available for free it took me 12 months to write and I do not expect to see a return on the money it cost me to put it together.

    I will continue with my campaign to see this AGW fraud destroyed and will be happy to inform others of you censorship.

    Thank you

    REPLY: Monckton’s association with Thatcher is well known to me and most everyone else. For example it was in the titles on video of his Fox News interview we posted here at WUWT. Note the video screencap above says just that, so your claim is groundless.

    Rant all you wish, make threats all you want, but I’m not going to allow your posts. Your document has elements in it that I don’t wish to be associated with, plus your website offers commercial things like “how to quit smoking”, which I also don’t wish to be associated with.

    http://www.spinonthat.com/

    See the WUWT policy page, link under the masthead. I have the right not to post things that I don’t wish to be associated with. Simple as that. Feel free to spread your message elsewhere, but I am not obligated to do so. Please don’t post your advertisements for your booklet here again. – Anthony Watts

  166. Given the recent thread about DARPA”s contest to as a test involving the internet’s distributed resources to find weather balloons. I thought this example of using distributed resources for another purpose (breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be reliant here. This is an effort to have lots of people dig through the document and post quick summaries of the contents by page so people can get a quick idea of where various measures are talked about and perhaps where they want to focus their attention.

    http://breakitapart.ning.com/forum/topics/copenhagen-treaty-2

    Larry

  167. I need to wake up —
    DARPA”s contest to as a test
    should read — DARPA”s contest being used as a test

    (breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be reliant here.
    should read — (breaking down the Copenhagen Treaty) would be relevant here.

    Larry

  168. For those making political comments here, some upholding a literal reading of the Constitution:

    our society and our institutions are far beyond the framework of the Constitution. If we would try to crawl back inside the words of the original document we would be shutting down institutions like the FAA, the FTC, the FDA, NASA, NOAA, the NIH, the national parks, and the list goes on, endlessly.

    Income transfer also is used extensively, and has been for a long time. The Agriculture Bill transfers vast amounts of income to farmers. The Defense Appropriations Bill transfers vast amounts of money to the aerospace and defense industries. Capital gains taxations transfers vast amounts of income away from income earners and to wealthier investors.

    In the United States, capitalists have believed in income transfer for a long time, so maybe this can put an end to the socialist talk. For anyone who cares to look, there is plenty of socialism in our economy. It’s just not for the poor, like Marx once imagined it.

    And I’m not a Marxist, not even a socialist, so please don’t start.

  169. Tor Hansson (21:32:28) :

    The whole point, at least for skeptics like me, is to de-politicize the debate.

    Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate. He is a demagogue. He often lies and speaks half-truths. (Yes, he does. He said, on the air, that Mr. Obama has a hatred for white people. I guess that includes his mother, who was white.) Glenn Beck does not serve any useful purpose I can see for AGW skeptics.

    I am not saying Lord Monckton should not appear on Glenn Beck. Of course he can, provided he appears on a number of other shows as well, such as Olbermann, Maddow, Face The Nation, and whatever else can be mustered. But just appearing on Glenn Beck politicizes the issue, which in my mind is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.

    Tor Hansson the whole point is that this is a political issue. It has been politicised by the IPCC. It was politicised when the political bosses over-ruled the scientific consensus in 1995 to say that there was a discernable influence of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate. Then in 2001 with the hockey stick and a “likely” influence and now by saying that this is “very likely”.

    I am not an American and I only judge Glen Beck or Monckton by what they have said and how they have behaved in the videos I have seen above and they make sense. Does what they say make sense to you? Or would you reject it because Beck allegedly said that Obama has a hatred for white people?

    It could be that the message Monckton is trying to put across, based on logic and reason maybe rejected out of hand because it comes from a person like Beck who some might view as being on the extreme right.

    PS I would like a link to where he has said what you have alleged.

  170. Phil Clarke,

    You’re making this too easy. Quoting Al Gore, in your own comment above:

    “The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned. Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres…”

    Are you defending Gore’s wacked-out doomsday predictions? Do you actually believe that in 5 – 10 years the whole north polar ice cap will be ‘totally and completely gone’ — in the winter months??

    Do you seriously accept Gore’s statement that 40% of the northern ice cap has already melted? And why does Gore and every other alarmist only refer to the Northern Hemisphere? Global warming is global, don’t you see? Global ice extent is not declining.

    Please don’t try to masquerade here as a skeptic. The scientific method states that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the purveyors of the climate doom scenarios, like Al Gore, who have the burden of showing that their CO2=AGW conjecture explains reality better than the widely accepted theory of natural climate variability. So far, they have failed.

    But go ahead and defend old Al’s predictions all you like. We’ll see if all the Northern Hemisphere ice has melted in the winter of 2014. Somehow, I doubt it.

    Alarmists have never provided raw data that confirms their CO2=AGW hypothesis. They certainly would be trumpeting it to the world if they had it. Instead, they hide behind computer models — which are not data — and behind self-serving pseudo-scientists like Al Gore. But I guess you play the hand you’ve been dealt.

  171. Peter Wilson,

    There is no data for arctic ice extent in the 1930’s, but the furthest north any conventional ship has ever sailed in recorded history was reached by a Russian warship in 1938. The captain’s radio message was reported in the New York Times at that time.

  172. Tor Hansson (21:32:28) said:

    “The whole point, at least for skeptics like me, is to de-politicize the debate.”

    Then Hanssen immediately politicizes his comment by going right into an unscientific, personal, ad hominem attack in his next sentence:

    “Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate. He is a demagogue. He often lies and speaks half-truths.”

    I’ve heard Beck. I’m not a regular listener, but from what I’ve heard, if Beck were suddenly transported back 50 years in time, he would probably be to the Left of John F. Kennedy, D-Mass. So rather than Beck being “far right”, perhaps it is Tor Hansson who is simply far Left.

    And as Richard asks above, I would also like to see a verifiable citation of Mr. Beck saying what Tor claims. Mr Hansson needs to produce the actual quotes, in context, backing up his allegations. Or we will know who the real demagogue is — and who, in his own words, is telling ‘lies and half truths.’

    I suspect that the attacks on the Beck program are being launched because the alarmist crowd is, as always, unable to provide unassailable data-based facts to support their AGW beliefs. Monckton knows what he’s talking about, which is why the alarmist contingent runs away and hides out from formally debating him. Instead, they take pot shots at both him, and at one of the only media outlets willing to let him speak freely and argue his position.

  173. Glenn Beck is a shark. if he “smells blood” , i.e. higher ratings, with the AGW issue, it ‘ll be back, and lots of it. Then O’Reilly will seriously pick it up, but right now, he’s on the “GW” but not the AGW side. if this winter is what we think it will be, they’ll all be on the case

  174. ~snip~

    And, yes, I agree with Beck that Obama hates white people. He’s not alone in this, of course – many white people also hate white people.

  175. OKE E DOKE (08:23:09) :
    ‘Tor Hansson (22:21:49) :
    So OKE DOKE:
    You believe that Barack Obama hates America?’
    I was refering to Tor Hansson’s statment and not your comment that led to Tor’s statement. ‘….Barack Obama hates America.’
    ‘He doesn’t SEEM to have the same opinion of this country that i do.
    that– i DO know’
    Nor does President Obmana have the same opinion of this country that I do. And like you, that I DO know.

  176. For those who care:

    Glenn Beck calling Barack Obama a racist—and saying he has a deep-seated hatred of white people.

    Can we put this to bed please? Glenn Beck is tainted by his own irresponsible comments. That is all I am saying. To say he would be to the left of JFK is a travesty. Glenn Beck has also enlightened the viewers on the presence of “Communist” art at NBC headquarters.

    Again, he is bad company.

    About de-politicizing the debate: of course the alarmists have politicized the debate. The point is to get back to sound science. That can only be done by reasonable people who stick to the science and meet inflammatory arguments with reason.

    Shouldn’t be so hard to comprehend.

  177. `Tor Hansson (14:06:46) : ” For those making political comments here, some upholding a literal reading of the Constitution: our society and our institutions are far beyond the framework of the Constitution. If we would try to crawl back inside the words of the original document we would be shutting down institutions like the FAA, the FTC, the FDA, NASA, NOAA, the NIH, the national parks, and the list goes on, endlessly.”

    Don’t take this the wrong way, Tor, but…lol… you’re such a rubber snake! I just don’t feel threatened (by what you argue). So while you sit there with your tongue perpetually sticking out at my simple, Constitution-thumping mind, I’ll just “pull the plug on government-sponsored science”…

    Not because I am anti-science, but rather because it’s the right thing to do. I nor anyone owes a scientist or scientific organization any funding. And I realize that science can (and will) florish without any state or federal support, and probably more so than with all these agencies we have today. Our Constitution supports this notion as well. I THINK, off the top of my head, that Article I, section 8 says…

    “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries”

    Or something to that effect. So it allows, for the specific purpose of promoting the sciences, the freedom for one to patent/copyright their work. It is theirs to profit from and distribute in any way they see fit. This is the best way for science to continue to florish. When I see a book that catches my eye… I buy it. Science doesn’t deserve (nor need) my tax dollar, but my hard-earned, freely given dollar is a different story.

    So our founding fathers were not a bunch of antiquated idiots. They knew they didn’t need any federal agency to make science work, just the same way that they realized that a nation doesn’t need to support a particular religion. They learned from history what state-sponsored science and religion ultimately does, and so didn’t make any provisions for it.

    “Income transfer also is used extensively, and has been for a long time. In the United States, capitalists have believed in income transfer for a long time… so maybe this can put an end to the socialist talk.”

    The difference between socialism/marxism/collectivism and capitalism (as envisioned by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand) is that the former uses force and the latter, voluntary exchange. That’s a well-established difference between the two schools of thought (force vs free will), so I won’t go into that. What I will say is that if you don’t want the issue to be a political one, don’t blame Beck. Tell government to BUTT OUT of what it never had a right to butt into to begin with.

  178. `Tor Hansson (20:00:13) : For those who care: (I dont – have seen that video – no big deal) Glenn Beck calling Barack Obama a racist—and saying he has a deep-seated hatred of white people.
    Can we put this to bed please? Glenn Beck is tainted by his own irresponsible comments. That is all I am saying. To say he would be to the left of JFK is a travesty. Glenn Beck has also …he is bad company.

    Lord Monckton had quite a few things to say, some on the science and some on the politics. On all of this you keep mum on and instead divert the discussion to Glenn Beck.

    I’m sorry Glenn Beck is not the issue. The political agenda of the warmists to impose taxes on us without our consent and legislate us back to the stone age is.

    Debate those issues not the politics of Glenn Beck which I was totally unaware of. Should we reject all that was said, or refuse to discuss or debate it, because Glenn Beck, who was hosting the program, is allegedly, according to you, a jerk?

    About de-politicizing the debate: of course the alarmists have politicized the debate. The point is to get back to sound science. That can only be done by reasonable people who stick to the science and meet inflammatory arguments with reason.
    Shouldn’t be so hard to comprehend.

    I’m afraid you have got it totally wrong. In his essay “Placing My Lance” George Rebane has said it very well and I quote from that:

    “I just don’t think that putting all efforts in science-based counter arguments is the correct strategy. Wasting no crisis, AGW is the celebrated cause and the perfect storm to usher in worldwide collectivism. It is the culminating argument that the most hindered intellects everywhere can understand and answer correctly – ‘do you want to be free and cause an end to life as we know it, or do you want to work together (under state control) so that we can save the earth?’. Gore, Obama, and the one-world socialists, are correct that debate is over; their ‘science’ has won because the people don’t understand science, they understand slogans.”

    “But that reality doesn’t mean that these radical left elitists want us skeptics (to them ‘deniers’) to quit tilting at their carefully constructed windmills … On the contrary, the more busy we are in shoring up the scientific arguments countering AGW, the less energy and resources we have left for the part of the battle that still matters. Please don’t misunderstand here. I believe the work that both scientists and bloggers (i.e. Anthony Watts, Russ Steele, and others) are doing to expose the holes in AGW ‘science’ is important and should continue. But that effort, being necessary to counter global collectivism, does not mean that it is also sufficient to achieve success.”

    “Promoting AGW and its proposed fixes rests on three legs – the science, the economics, and the geo-politics. If the mind of the masses is to be illuminated, we have also to bring up on everyone’s radar the perfidy behind economic and ideological ‘solutions’.”

    Emphasis mine. Which leads me to ask are you really a sceptic or someone from the sky is falling camp?

  179. Richard:

    I regularly go on Huffington Post and debate warmists. I believe the truth is on the side of the skeptics. There is—perhaps—a slight amount of warming which is most likely natural and nothing else, possible with a trifling amount of warming from human CO2. I believe the climate models have a predictive ability out to a two-week horizon and nothing more. I believe the press and other alarmists regularly overstate the case in a way that can only be termed dishonest.

    Lord Monckton did a fine job, although you can read this thread and find some objections to his presentation and angle of attack. What you need to keep in mind is the old quote from Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” The Glenn Beck Show is not a good medium to win over the American mainstream.

    I believe that what there is of a nefarious agenda on the alarmist side has to do with personal gain. Al Gore for instance has a clear conflict of interest in that respect, and needs to be called on it until he loses all credibility.

    But world socialism is a bogeyman that doesn’t fly. To propose that the United Nations will be the one to introduce it is laughable. Come on—China, India, and Russia will not follow along with any limitations on their economic policies, and if they do, that’s when the U.S. takes its marbles and goes home, because the only reason those countries would go along would be to place the onus on the U.S. economy. So much for the fear of worldwide collectivism. It is a point of view that is just as alarmist as AGW.

    I have no problem with calling out the alarmists on their suggested remedies, particularly because we know that they are completely ineffective even if there was an AGW problem. And yes, there are people who think we should all grow watercress in our bicycle handlebar baskets and shut down industry. Guess what? They will get nowhere with their arguments. They will be shut down as surely as the sun rises in the east, because Americans and Europeans will turn away from anything that threatens their jobs and standard of living. The more such suggestions are heard, the more people will take an interest in the opposing view. The more likely scenario is that nuclear power will make a comeback, hardly what those folks had in mind.

    I am a communications professional. What is clear to me is that we are slowly winning this opinion war. This web site and several others (Climate Audit, Pielke, etc.) can take at least some credit for that. This movement (and it is one, albeit of the counter-kind) cannot afford to be pigeonholed with propagandists like Glenn Beck. This war is won by staying in the mainstream. We do not have the sexy end of the argument, the alarmists do. What we have are facts that win based on their ultimate credibility—that align with reality. They will eventually wake people up and make them wonder what the hell they were thinking, although the going can be slow and frustrating. Your proposition that the science argument is already won by the alarmists is contradicted by ongoing shifts in public opinion.

    I would also say that I did not mean to make that big of a deal of Glenn Beck. Suffice it to say that he has little to contribute to this. Lord Monckton is a bit of an odd duck himself, but I respect his contribution.

    And Benjamin: Your suggestion to shut down public research is not going anywhere, trust me on that. Government funds a massive amount of basic research that otherwise would be unlikely to get done, as the commercial applications are unclear or doubtful. Every major industrial power uses a combination of public and private research to further science. (Remember the Manhattan Project?) The medium you use to express yourself—the Internet—was in fact created through publicly funded research efforts. I don’t know what else to tell you.

  180. `Tor Hansson (14:06:46) :

    So my initial impression of you is that you were an ideologue of left politics. Now it has evolved to you being a radical leftists.

    No wonder you are so opposed to Glenn Beck.

    As I read more of your comments who knows where the rabbit trail will lead.

  181. Tor Hansson (21:32:28) said:

    “Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate.

    After reading over your comments it would appear that anything to the right of Marx is far right to you.

  182. `Tor Hansson (00:02:53) :

    Lord Monckton is a bit of an odd duck himself

    It’s good that we’ve found nothing odd about you, Tor.

  183. It’s a funny thing Tor, isn’t it, that people on the left have a very hard time saying or believing anything other about themselves but that they are in the middle.

  184. Dear Gene Nemetz:

    I for one am relieved that you got that off your chest.

    If you like Glenn Beck and subscribe to his opinions, that’s fine with me. I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse. You keep your opinion, I’ll keep mine.

  185. `Tor Hansson

    ‘Tor, one of the flaws in subscribing to any debate is that you become pigeonholed. Unfortunately you are either conservative (liberal/republican) or or socialist (labor/democrat) , but there’s not a thing you can do about it because the press express views in dualities only.

    Where’s the opinion of the centre? They don’t care and it will never get noticed. Individual accountability provides no scandal or hysteria.
    After all this global warming nonsense is over, we’ll be back to the same ol’ rigmarole and history will repeat over and over, despite the best efforts of sites like this.

    I really believe that most of us are getting off on the challenge.

  186. `Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :

    I dsidn’t ask to change your opinion.

    And I didn’t say I was a fan of Glenn Beck either.

    But you admit something that was clear from the first—politics are what is important to you.

  187. `Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :

    I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.

    That’s funny…

    from what I have observed over the summer he has influenced politics in America more than anyone else. Now the White House can’t stop talking about FOX.

    But I think you are blocking that out from your view. It must be most unpleasant.

  188. `Tor Hansson (00:45:05) :

    I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.

    I’d say that’s minimizing.

    What I thought was revealing about President Barak Obama in regards to FOX News is the statement from the White House last week that said they are bringing up FOX in particular because they are ‘speaking truth to power’. Odd that. Very odd. They think FOX is ‘the power’ and not themselves.

    So they think FOX News and Glenn Beck have power that you say is only a non-serious contribution.

    All I can say is long live freedom of the press!! And of the internet!!

    p.s. yes, that felt good to say too. ;-)

  189. I saw the “truth to power” comment from the White House. It is a very strange comment for them to make.

    At any rate, I have no interest in discussing partisan politics on this site. I stand by my assertion that skeptics are better off in the AGW debate if they stick to the facts and the science.

    And I stand by my assertion that the only audience that matters is the U.S. mainstream.

    [Reply: OK then, everyone please leave it at that. ~dbstealey, moderator.]

  190. `Tor Hansson maybe there are some people who will not accept Lord Monckton’s arguments because they were hosted by Glenn Beck, maybe he needs multiple channels in order for him to be listened to by a broader section in the US.

    According to you “.. world socialism is a bogeyman that doesn’t fly. To propose that the United Nations will be the one to introduce it is laughable. ..China, India, and Russia will not follow along with any limitations on their economic policies, and if they do, that’s when the U.S. takes its marbles and goes home, because the only reason those countries would go along would be to place the onus on the U.S. economy. So much for the fear of worldwide collectivism. It is a point of view that is just as alarmist as AGW.”

    The Copenhagen draft agreement is there for all to read. This is from the United Nations. Why should it be so hard to understand that the UN wants to sneak in a tax (as much as possible, allegedly about 2% of the income of western nations) for the supposed cause of “fighting climate change”, an imaginary enemy about to destroy the world.

    UN officials pay lip service to socialism. They weep for the poor while paying themselves obscenely high salaries and perks. They go periodically broke because of these huge outgoings so they would be happy for a secure source of income. Thus funding is a favourite word in their document.

    They say “It is also particularly important to provide adequate, predictable, stable, sufficient and timely funding for adaptation purposes particularly by developed countries. Developed country Parties shall support these developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.”

    “They (we that is) shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development.” – Its all our fault you see. We have caused the climate change.

    Now if we have to fight malaria it is not necessary to provide better health and sanitation we have to research on how reduce carbon. Pest control is tackled the same way. Hurricanes flooding New Orleans – better dykes and levees? Oh no no – sequester carbon and you wont have Katrina. Polar bears and other species dying? Simply declare CO2 a pollutant and tax it.

    They need funds so they say “The establishment of a [Readiness fund][Special REDD-plus fund][a new and additional fund]. The funds shall come from contributions from [developed country Parties], [market-linked revenues], [innovative funding sources including auctioning of national emissions trading allowances or of assigned amount units at international level, and penalties or fines for non-compliance of developed country Parties with their emission reduction and financial resources commitments]. These funds shall be [new and additional to ODA], [complementary to GEF, and bilateral and multilateral funding].”

    Alternatively “A window of the relevant financial mechanism established under the Convention through [an International Climate Fund][a special climate change fund][a mitigation fund].”

    Of course the money must come from somewhere – from our pockets.

    Obama is saying we must have an agreement, Brown is saying we must, our PM is saying so as is Kevin Rudd, the European Nations are saying so – why do you think it is ridiculous that is will happen?

  191. PS Gene Nemetz you are discussing Glen Beck’s and Tor Hansonn’s political views, which I think are not relevant here to the issues raised in this topic.

  192. Richard:

    In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. isn’t even paid up on its regular membership dues in the UN. It hasn’t paid for years. We currently owe the U.N $1.3 billion, with no immediate plans of paying.

    To imagine that Congress would approve a 2% tax (on what? the U.S. GNP?) that would be placed under UN control is not even remotely possible. It would be voted down in a heartbeat.

    I am quite surprised that people here don’t realize that the United Nations enacts such flowery rhetoric all the time, and then absolutely nothing happens.

  193. Richard (11:18:47) :

    My point in this exchange was defend Lord Monckton and why he was on Glenn Beck’s show. You probably read the last few comments I posted and not all of them.

    I couldn’t care less about Glenn Beck’s and Tor’s politics. I do care that people see who everyone is and their motivation for talking about Monckton the way they are.

    I clearly see that ~dbstealey asked this exchange end. It has for me. I only posted this comment to clarify why I had been posting my comments. It appears the original intent was lost somewhere along the way.

    —————————————

    ~dbstealey.

    I won’t be back to this thread. I don’t want to be a dork and ignore the requests of moderators.

  194. After following this debate since Al Gore’s failed BTU tax, CO2 Cap and Tax has never been about science. It has always been about forced transfer of wealth. A new tax system that we don’t need.

  195. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/when_i_say_green_you_say_money/

    Australian scientist, author and climate change activist Tim Flannery came to Ottawa recently to promote his latest book, Now or Never and to press the Canadian government to sign on to Copenhagen. Now I must say that compared to many Canadian green activists, Flannery seems highly reasonable and a nice chap; he even has a sense of humour, a quality that seems to have leeched out of our own green movement some time in the ‘90s.

    When I asked Flannery about the notion reported in such climate change boosting newspapers as Britain’s left-wing Guardian, that the deal would mean a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, Flannery didn’t flinch. In fact he called this essential to the deal.

    “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case,” said Flannery. “The negotiations now ongoing towards 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, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.”

  196. As a Canadian, who is a naturalised Ozzie, “we” Ozzies, almost unanimously, think the Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, is a joke. He must be as surprised as the rest of us that every morning he gets up and still has a TV forum to spout tripe.

Comments are closed.