In case you missed it live, Christopher Monckton spent an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program today on the topic of global warming, skepticism, and the Copenhagen Treaty.
The video is now available.
Watch it below.
I think Lord Monckton did a splendid job.
To see the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, see this essay on the subject here.
Parts 1-7 of the hour long video are below. YouTube has time limits on clips, so it is broken up into parts 1-7.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“Kum Dollison (19:39:56) :
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?”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
Page 38
Monckton of Brenchley (18:11:18) :
Thank you, Again, thank you for a great performance.
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.
Gary understands. Think out of the left v. right box. It is a fabrication.
Could you post an article about the “end of the scare” aka Lindzen’s paper. Thanks.
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
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 …
.
.
.
Oh, I see you’ve covered the Lindzen paper here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen.
A direct link to the Lindzen paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf.
If you could cover the Monckton argument about how this paper is conclusive proof against AGW that would be great.
Also, what about increased CO2 on ocean acidification? A friend brought that up and I didn’t know anything on that topic. Thanks.
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.
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.
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!
so, is the Lindzen paper to be believed or not—– can’t tell from these blogs
Or, to coin another popular phrase “we can’t get there from here …”
🙂
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”).
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!
I came across this site today.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/262/5137/1252
It talks about 15 models of radiative forcing.If the science is settled wouldn’t we only need one?.
We only need one model of Ohms law.
We only need one model of Newtons laws.
We only need one model of Einsteins theory
Why do we need 15 models for global warming
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
rukidding pasted (21:44:02) :
Why do we need 15 models for global warming
Apparently having only 12 all wrong might draw suspicion.
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?
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.