I’m waiting for actual photos of the event from the official photographer, but for now I’ll make do with what can be found on the Internet. For those who don’t know, the Oxford Union is the top of the food chain for scholarly debate. This is a significant win.
Founded in 1823 at the University of Oxford, but maintaining a separate charter from the University, The Oxford Union is host to some of the most skillful debates in the world. Many eminent scholars and personalities have come and either debated or delivered speeches in the chamber. Monckton was invited as part of the formal Thursday debate.
It is described as follows:
The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Here is a view inside from a previous debate:
From the SPPI Blog, an account of the debate:
Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe
Source: SPPI
Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.
Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.
When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up. It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.
At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.
Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].
Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.
Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.
Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.
Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].
Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].
Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.
Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].
The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.
Sponsored IT training links:
Planning to take on MB2-632? Get complete set of 70-272 practice questions including 000-377 test demos for fail safe exam preparation.
Jason
I was a substitute high school science/math teacher for 5 years beginning about 14 years ago while my kids were still in school. It was enjoyable and I had the time, at that time, plus wanted to know what my kids were being told. Even in a conservative state such as WY, the curriculum was spun way to the left and “green” science was replacing real science. As an engineering school grad and MBA, I could actually teach many of the courses as opposed to baby sitting and can tell you that the indoctrination in our schools is heavy due to the control of our teaching colleges by the left. There is little wonder that people can be bamboosled so easily, even the smart ones, as kids tend to believe what their teachers teach. When my youngest son graduated HS, in spite of my input, he would give the commonly accepted responses to arguments regarding environmental issues. “Even if there is no global warming we still need to cut back on fossil fuels or we’ll run out soon” etc. By the time he graduated from engineering school and understood research and statistics much better and saw what a hoax was being foisted on the public, he became, and is now, even more outspoken on the global warming issue than many who visit this site. Unfortunately the downside for smart kids like him, who obtain a real education in the sciences, there is a factor of discust now involved and extreme skepticism regarding any and all scientific theories. But perhaps this is a good thing as long as it does not result in complete throwing out of the baby with the bath water. After all there are many who are skeptical of string theory, dark matter/energy, etc even though they are now the generally accepted theories in that field. Even Einstein is being questioned!
In addition to the extreme social/environmental views such as you indicate, which are, indeed, being pushed on our children, there is complete lack of accurate history, proper English and appropriate mathmatics emphasis. But after all, an ignorant population is much easier to control.
Jim G says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:22 am
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
@ur momisugly Jason says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:59 am
RE: All those quotes from Club of Rome, etc.
It seems obvious to me, and likely to others, that the context of these statements is that the authors are automatically exempting themselves from these draconian measures, and view themselves as the “Untouchable Engineers” of global management. Quite a God complex they have going there, wouldn’t you say? I have a significant problem with that, as I suspect you do also.
If humanity is fated to become a poor shadow of our current existence, I expect – no I DEMAND – that everyone has their name in the hat and that the lottery be conducted per the usual rules of survival and evolution. No exemptions.
Monckton certainly talks a good game but . . .
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-crock-of-week-lord-monckton.html
“”” Mike says:
May 24, 2010 at 9:06 pm
…………………
George Smith: No one has projected that Earth will end up like Venus, not even Heisenberg. “””
Well you never heard me say that anybody has projected that either. Perhaps you can then educate us all, and explain to those of us that don’t get it; just why the MMGWCC crowd then keep on mentioning ad nauseum that Venus is a fiery furnace due to CO2 global warming. If they are not intimating that might happen on earth; why the hell are they even mentioning it. I don’t see the AGW crowd ever mentioning who is the current challenger of record for the next Americas Cup Challenge; so why do they even mention something else equally irrelevent; as the Planet Venus ?
“”” cba says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:29 am
George E. Smith,
May 24, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I can’t let you get away with that one. While reasonable for a BB, it is reasonable for even an isothermal simplistic model of the Earth. It should be obvious from venus that it is possible to have a very high surface temperature under some conditions. Earth has an albedo that rids us of around 30% of that incoming solar which is around 1360 w/m^2 average value for Earth’s orbit and blankets a spheroid even though the Earth forms an apparent disk for the solar radiation to hit – leading to an average of 1/4 of that 1360 w/m^2. That means actually, we’ve got around 238w/m^2 coming in and for balance, it means we’ve got 238 w/m^2 leaving, despite our 390 w/m^2 of surface emission. That means about 39% of the surface emission must be absorbed or blocked by the atmosphere. Actually, it’s a lot more than that as cloud tops also emit continuum radiation at colder temperatures and we can’t be losing more than that 238 w/m^2 total from Earth.
From this you should be able to infer that on Earth and on Venus, there is more than just incoming top of atmosphere and outgoing surface radiation at work in determining the numbers. Even though Venus has more TOA incoming solar, most of it doesn’t get into the atmosphere and heat the planet and even though the surface is over 400 C, most of the emissions from the surface don’t make it out as it has a balance point that is less than that of Earth’s. Of course by climate definitions, it would seem Venus doesn’t actually have a greenhouse effect going on as there’s practically no incoming solar power hitting the surface. “””
So just who is getting away with what cba ? What is it, that your essay has to do, with my mental thought experiment ?
First of all, Earth is NOT Venus; so we do not have a Venus like atmosphere; and we aren’t likely soon to acquire a Venus like atmosphere; so whatever happens on Venus is of no consequence to what could happen on earth (or couldn’t).
The only reason that I even mentioned Venus, was simply to point out that the principal CO2 absorption of IR radiation on Venus is NOT the same as on Earth. Yes the 15 micron band should still be active; but at Venus surface temperature the 4 micron band is right at the IR spectral peak.
And yes I know that none of these things radiate like Black Bodies; but they all do radiate continuum thermal radiation that is bounded by the appropriate Black Body spectrum as an envelope limiting their emissions as a function of the Temperature or the range of Temperatures involved. And I am thoroughly familiar with all of those numbers you cited. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I do take 1366 W/m^2 as my nominal value for TSI, although I grew up with 1353.
My 1000 W/m^2 number was simply the common practice value assumed for Air Mass One ground level solar insolation; which derives from ordinary atmospheric absorption including water vapor; and is unrelated to Albedo.
My Infra-Red handbook gives a TSI spectral peak value of 2.2 (kW/m^2/um); or 2.0 for the best fit 5900 K BB curve (1353 based); and it gives a peak of 1.5 for the ground level Air Mass One peak; and 1000 is about 3/4 of 1353; so you can scale it for 1366 if you like; isn’t necessary for my thought model.
I don’t buy the 1/4 of 1366 model; sorry. At any moment slightly more than one hemisphere of the earth is receiving solar radiation; and the portion directly under the noonday sun that is receiving something like that 1000 W/m^2 at the surface is also getting a damn side hotter than it would if it were only receiving Trenberth’s 168 W/m^2. And to me that is an important distinction; since I consider one of the principal misunderstandings in all of this, is the notion that somehow the earth cools from the polar regions; whereas it is the very hottest desert midday temperatures that result in the greatest cooling effect; even under direct sunlight.
The very hottest desert surfaces radiate at more that 10 times the emittance of the coldest ploar regions; and moreover they do so with a spectral peak more like 8.7 microns. than 10.1 at 288 K or even 15 microns at the very coldest Vostok Temperatures.
So the effectiveness of the 15 micron CO2 band is greatly reduced at the desert highs; and with often much lower humidities, the H2O bands around the 8-10 micron window are also less absorptive.
Anyone who arms themselves with a Universal Black Body Radiation graph (normalized ) and the visible and near and far IR spectra of CO2 and H2O along with the AM0 and AM1 solar spectra can see for themselves, that it simply is not possible for any amount of CO2 that could enter the present earth atmopshere, to cause enough heating to shift the temperature to where the 4.0 micron band of CO2 becomes the principal warming mode. The demand for ever higher “forcing” from CO2 to raise the surface temperature gets stymied by the ever diminishing effect of the CO2 15 micron band; and it never does make it to the 4 micron band.
So the idea of a CO2 driven thermal runaway is just plain silly.
And for the record, I eat, sleep, breathe, and absorb by osmosis, this stuff for at least 10 hours a day, five days a week; unless it wakes me up at night to do some more.
So I am not getting away with anything; and I am not going to post a PhD thesis on thermodynamics or black body radiation or optics of EM radiation; just to make a simple point that any 8th grade high school science student can understand.
I’m hoping; (maybe erroneaously) that anything I post, might be of some assistance to readers here who are not physicists or maybe have any science training at all; but who are hoping to read something that they can understand; and anybody can understand this stuff; but they don’t have to learn it or commit it to memory; just know that it exists.
If somebody wants to get into the Quantum Chromo-dynamics of Rainfall; I don’t think this is the forum for doing that.
Mike,
Your quoted statistics are wonderful. 97% of all “climate scientists”, eh?
First question, just what the heck IS a “climate scientist”??
Second question, is there a single college or university in existence that offers a degree in “climate science”? (Oh, I thought not…)
So, why don’t you ask some REAL scientists for their opinions instead.
Fact #1: 97% of all “climate science” is made up of whole cloth.
Fact #2: 84% of all data put into models by “climate scientists” is either made up, faulty, or fudged badly.
Fact #3: 74% of climate scientists would have ZERO grant money coming in if they did not parrot the belief that CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC global warming is real (I am sure this is a BIG motivator for them to toe the party line on this issue, since otherwise they would be jobless and broke).
Fact #4: Only 5% of all “climate scientists” have a degree in anything that actually gives them a basic understanding of weather, let alone something as complex as “climate”.
Somehow I think your statistics are a joke when you are only quoting the opinions of “climate scientists”… Climate science isn’t even a recognized or recognizeable science, and those that practice it are wholly 100% dependent upon the government teat for their ever last dollar. If the government tells them to believe that climate change is real, you had better believe that 95% of them believe it!
But Lord Monckton always wins, usually by default, but also after having successfully educated the opposition in basic calculus. :p
Well done, Lord Monckton, very good news!
And let me second this:
I am reading Montfords book these days also. It is an amazing story that is extremely well written. It is written in a way that most people should be able to follow, but at the same time it has a lot of concrete information and a huge list of references. It is a must read.
I am a scientist – a practicing geologist – and know about 40-50 other scientists. Not one of these people believe in the alarmist philosophy of extreme climate change.
All my scientist colleagues believe the world has warmed a little over the last century, mostly due to natural causes. Most accept increases in carbon dioxide levels will cause minor warming, but that the concept of ‘forcing’ is complete BS. Why? If ‘forcing’ was real, it would have happened many times before in geological history – unfortunately for the alarmists, it hasn’t. If ‘forcing’ was real, then logically it would be an exponential effect – once started, it would be impossible to stop.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, all the scientists I know work in the private sector and therefore are not told what to think or say if they want to keep their jobs.
As for the Oxford Union Society, their conclusion represents yet another small step in the process of turning back the tide of false science, so beloved by the political left.
Feet2theFire says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:24 am
“@ur momisugly Mike May 24, 2010 at 4:53 pm:
‘Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring… Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.’
“Wow.
They BELIEVE.
Is it a church? A temple? A cult?
Belief has as much to do with REAL science as the color of a seal’s fur has to do with corn yields.
I thought the Royal Society got religious points of view out of science 350 years ago.
This is climate “scientists” Mike is referring to. I can see some level of “belief” if the poll was taken on non-climatic scientists, because scientists in one speciality accept that the ones in other disciplines have done due diligence. It is both professional courtesy and an assumption that assertions are based on proven facts. But within climate science itself, what could they possibly be thinking, saying they “believe”? If they are actual scientists, either they know, or they shut their yaps. They don’t go around professing to “believe.”
Believe? Spare us, please!”
I’m with you on this Feet2theFire, the whole contrived hoax is cargo cult science at its worst! An hypothesis which cannot be falsified has no merit.
johnhayte says:
May 25, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Monckton certainly talks a good game but . . .
Pete Sinclair of Depropaganda Blog? You’ve got to be kidding.
Pip, pip, and pass the Bollinger !
The Discount Mosley has persuaded some few undergraduates to vote against fighting for king country or planet .
Er, didn’t he go to Chrurchill College Cambridge?
Perhaps a poll should be taken there.
Michael Reed says:
May 24, 2010 at 7:42 pm
John Q Public says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“In 20 years, AGW will equal The Red Scare in terms of silliness.”
This may be OT, but the Red Scare was anything but silly. The Soviets built the largest tank armies the world has ever seen, far larger than anything NATO had, and pronounced publicly and often that they intended to bury the West. Fortunately for us, they spent themselves into the grave.
The Chinese have a far larger tank army than the Russians ever had. Population does that for you.
The Cold War is pertinant in that it often had people focussing on one number (the tank gap, the missile gap) just as now they focus on the ppm of CO2 and ignore everything else.
People seem to continually fail to see the bigger picture with its multitude of complexities. Back in the Cold War, Russians invading Western Europe was a silly idea, but grandly feared at the time. In that case it’s not the number of weapons, but the logistics that kills that idea. Similarly in the case of CO2, it’s rain that rains on that particular parade.
The devil is always in the details.
Mike says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:53 pm
To bad there were no scientists or economists in the debate. See: http://www.oxford-union.org/term_events/economic_growth_debate
Nigel Lawson is an economist. Also he used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so hopefully he picked something up during his time there.
Were the debaters allowed to use Google? Here is one survey on what scientists think:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
And don’t forget, 8 out of 10 cats prefer Wiskas.
Unfortunately, people are blinded by “recent events syndrome” – it may have been even warmer in their youth, but they forget that and place greater emphasis on what has happened to them personally, recently.
I remember a radio station running a poll in 1999 to find the greatest music of the past millenium. Virtually all of the chosen pieces were pop songs.
Enneagram says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:51 am
Jim G says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:22 am
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
This gets repeated over and again, but it’s untrue. When you can “teach” children not to drink, or smoke, or have sex – then I might start believing in it.
Justa Joe says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:40 am
“Margaret Thatcher remains an active supporter of anthropogenic global warming causes.” – GeoFlynx
Maggie Thatcher wanted to break the out of control coal unions in the UK, and I beieve that she is dead. Her death also preceded most of the debate regarding CAGW.
Mrs. Thatcher will be saddened to learn of her own demise.
In 1935, the Oxfod Union voted “It would not fight for King and Country”. The result greatly emboldened the Nazis who felt it showed how the British had grown soft.
Let’s give this 4 years also, and see how it looks from 2014.
Z: “Nigel Lawson is an economist. Also he used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so hopefully he picked something up during his time there.”
Thank you for correcting me Z. I did not realize that.
@jim G says:
May 25, 2010 at 8:23 am
“The mini ice ages of the recent past subsequent to large volcanic erutions caused famines, plagues and wars. ”
You would be very hard pushed to find large enough eruptions within 2yrs of every cold episode through Maunder and Dalton. Its very curious looking at monthly temperatures on CET around all the coldest winters since 1659, there are well above temperatures within 3 to 4 months either side of most of these events. This is short term solar changes relative to the seasons at play, the real nature of climate change within the Holocene perspective.
Z says:
May 25, 2010 at 2:29 pm
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
This gets repeated over and again, but it’s untrue. When you can “teach” children not to drink, or smoke, or have sex – then I might start believing in it.”
These things were taught to children quite successfully for a long time. It is only recently that it has been assumed to be impossible, largely because for the most part we no longer even try. In fact most of the current cultural milieu seems to be constructed to teach them the exact opposite, a milieu which is primarily the creation of the same folks who are brainwashing them with the new puritanism of “green”. That might seem to be a logical contradiction, but it is typical of our present state where freedom is defined as license without responsibility in an environment of complete surrender to prevailing dogma and government control.
‘
Peter Miller said (May 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm):
“I am a scientist – a practicing geologist – and know about 40-50 other scientists. Not one of these people believe in the alarmist philosophy of extreme climate change.”
Let me guess, you work for a mining company? I’m just guessing of course.
“All my scientist colleagues believe the world has warmed a little over the last century, mostly due to natural causes. Most accept increases in carbon dioxide levels will cause minor warming, but that the concept of ‘forcing’ is complete BS. Why? If ‘forcing’ was real, it would have happened many times before in geological history – unfortunately for the alarmists, it hasn’t. If ‘forcing’ was real, then logically it would be an exponential effect – once started, it would be impossible to stop.”
Now I know you are not a scientist. Forcing does not mean something that can never stop. Here is a nice definition: “Climate Forcing: The Earth’s climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. In recent times, the latter has been evident as a consequence not of natural processes but of man-made pollution, through emissions of greenhouse gases. By altering the global energy balance, such mechanisms “force” the climate to change. Consequently, scientists call them “climate forcing” mechanisms.”
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_change/older/Climate_Forcing.html
“Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, all the scientists I know work in the private sector and therefore are not told what to think or say if they want to keep their jobs.”
I have worked in industry. You can be fired for any reason. As an academic I have tenure and cannot be fired for expressing a contrary opinion. Your statement is so completely backwards that I suspect you know you are being disingenuous.
“As for the Oxford Union Society, their conclusion represents yet another small step in the process of turning back the tide of false science, so beloved by the political left.”
We shall see.
3 cheers for Lord Monckton!
Keep up the good work people. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Uplift those around you. It is up to those who are aware of tyranny to inform those that are not. Sharpen your minds as the elite do…by only eating pure, organic non-GMO food, avoiding fluoridated water like the plague and purifying the air in your homes and work place. Do not take vaccines and avoid common table salt (replace it with pink Himalayan rock salt, for example). Throw out your microwave ovens and TV sets.
And watch the skies.. the trails those planes are producing just might turn into clouds before your very eyes…very deadly clouds.
Justa Joe said (May 25, 2010 at 9:40 am): “ “Margaret Thatcher remains an active supporter of anthropogenic global warming causes.” – GeoFlynx …Maggie Thatcher wanted to break the out of control coal unions in the UK, and I beieve that she is dead. Her death also preceded most of the debate regarding CAGW.”
The Iron Lady is not dead. Joe, do a little research before you hit send. However there are reports of her suffering from dementia so I am not sure how active she is these days.
See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/thatcher_margaret.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp
Here is her classic speech on the global environment:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107817
It really should be required reading for everyone on this site. It makes a good case for action to prevent global climate change (although I don’t agree with her framing it as mainly an over population problem) and shows that whatever you opinion of the merits of AWG theory is, AWG is not a left-wing conspiracy.
George E. Smith says:
May 25, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“”” Mike says:
May 24, 2010 at 9:06 pm
…………………
George Smith: No one has projected that Earth will end up like Venus, not even Heisenberg. “””
Well you never heard me say that anybody has projected that either. Perhaps you can then educate us all, and explain to those of us that don’t get it; just why the MMGWCC crowd then keep on mentioning ad nauseum that Venus is a fiery furnace due to CO2 global warming. If they are not intimating that might happen on earth; why the hell are they even mentioning it. I don’t see the AGW crowd ever mentioning who is the current challenger of record for the next Americas Cup Challenge; so why do they even mention something else equally irrelevent; as the Planet Venus ?
George, you remind of students who do not do the reading before the lecture and then complain that the lecture is unclear. You see bits and pieces of news reports and blog posts, so of course you don’t have a coherent picture of the issues being debated. As to the particular question you asked: Venus is used as a classic illustration of the greenhouse effect, but no scientist thinks AGW on Earth will be anywhere near that extreme. There are environment nuts out there and some befuddled reporters who may have made stupid statements confounding the 2nd and 3rd plants. But don’t limp these together will actual scientists and responsible reporters. If you put them together into one “crowd” you will get confused.
Now go and do some serious reading:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Here you can even find a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Good luck.
Like Peter Miller I am a scientist (PhD in Thermodynamics), and like Peter Miller I know many scientists very few of whom believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.
My impression is that AGW belief is stronger among the “soft” scientists, and among the younger ones (i.e. those more indoctrinated during their education and less experienced).
For a true AGW zealot find a recent graduate in “Climate Studies” (usually with a Masters degree, since that allows them to sidestep the rigour a real science Batchelors). Although claiming to be a scientist their grasp of basic science will be feeble, as will be their grasp of scientific method and philosophy of science, and no amount of logic can impinge on their word perfect parroting of AGW dogma.