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.
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.
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.
BTW, Gore has officially lost what’s left of his mind: http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm
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.
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?
_Jim (20:47:39) :
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
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.
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!
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.
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:
Government = non elected bureaucrats
“financial mechanism” = TAXATION WITHOUT representation.
I.e. imposed perpetual tribute regardless of the economy, where
Assure = enforcement mechanism.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. “
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?
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??
” 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.
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
Tor Hansson (03:51:39) :
I also believe that associating with Glenn Beck is a bad idea for credibility reasons.
Many would not agree with you. Beck has very good ratings. If you were talking about Keith Olbermann then I would agree.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/countdown-with-keith-olbermann/805561/
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?
It is not his ratings I am talking about. I am talking about his credibility. He has none.
Squidly,
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.
Squidly,
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.
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.