In case you missed it live, Christopher Monckton spent an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program today on the topic of global warming, skepticism, and the Copenhagen Treaty.
The video is now available.
Watch it below.
I think Lord Monckton did a splendid job.
To see the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, see this essay on the subject here.
Parts 1-7 of the hour long video are below. YouTube has time limits on clips, so it is broken up into parts 1-7.
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.
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. 😉
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!
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.
Wonderful! Thank you, Anthony, for setting this up on your blog. I enjoyed it immensely.
“Al baby”….LOL
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 (http://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.
Well done Lord Monckton. It is humbling to see the deep respect you have for our Constitution. If only our leaders shared that respect.
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.
Gore HAS gone crazy, predicting 220 ft sea level rise within 10 years, polar icecap already 40% gone. He is ripe for a mental institution!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/gore_gone_wild_predicts_220_fo.html
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?
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. 😉
NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
“So I wonder what the real result is, using the updated data?”
Has the updated data been homogenized? Or pastuerized?
You are always welcome to embed my playlist:
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?
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?
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.
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?
Sorry I mean this one.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=29BFFBB28D11AAB9
Also great site here. Loved the story of the hockey stick.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly NikFromNYC
It is quite obvious you have not done your research on surface station issues. Please do, then rethink NOAA’s graph…..
Start here:
http://tinyurl.com/yl2q3xf Note “That is blatantly untrue” 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/yhleqsp
http://tinyurl.com/yz8zkcn
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.
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?
just saw the last segment again
once more “Al baby”
🙂
🙂
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 …”