Lord Monckton claims Global Warming is exaggerated.

[Deleted]

I love this part

"Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton"

That doesn't mean what he is saying isn't true.

[Dezerte]

I love this part

"Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton"

He also receives funding from oil companies and has a history of false and outrageous claims.

[Deleted]

No he hasn't. He agrees that additional greenhouse gas increases the temperature and then says "but I don't believe their data" without any facts or own data. His personal opinion has no meaning at all without data to back up his claims. What an idiot. "Here are facts" "I don't believe the facts, now listen to my personal fantasy and believe that instead". He thinks we are just in a warming period and all this is happening naturally. I already said what you should consider if you believe this. Burning fossil fuel is still bad for your health, no matter how warm or cold the earth is. For that reason alone we should stop doing that.

All this won't be relevant in a few years anyway.
Listen to this. We will all go solar and green, even those who love coal and oil burning now. Why? It will be way cheaper.

Take a look at this presentation. He explains how the IPCC cherry picked tree ring data when creating that hockey stick graph. They also cherry pick the gradient on the sin x curve to say 'The rate of global warming is increasing' when it is not.

[Machismo]

Take a look at this presentation. He explains how the IPCC cherry picked tree ring data when creating that hockey stick graph. They also cherry pick the gradient on the sin x curve to say 'The rate of global warming is increasing' when it is not.

You mean like when he cherry picks 1998 as year to go buy when it comes to changes in temperatures over the past 18 years? Anyone who uses 1998 as a focal data point is clearly cherry picking data.

[Deleted]

You mean like when he cherry picks 1998 as year to go buy when it comes to changes in temperatures over the past 18 years? Anyone who uses 1998 as a focal data point is clearly cherry picking data.

What do you have to say about the claim the Lord makes about the IPCC 'fiddling' the data on that tree ring data set?

[Kalis]

Lord Monckton, a man deemed unacceptable even to UKIP and they have Paul Nuttall leading them.

[Deleted]

He also receives funding from oil companies and has a history of false and outrageous claims.

This doesn't mean that what he is saying in his presentation isn't true.

[Machismo]

What do you have to say about the claim the Lord makes about the IPCC 'fiddling' the data on that tree ring data set?

What do you have to say about your guy cherry picking data?

Let me know when you are going to answer my questions, and when you get a moderator to change your bullshit title.

Did you create a second account for this? Did you create the title just for clickbait purposes?

[Revi]

There's just a tiny problem of his claims being disproved by real observations.

Like, he can repeat ad nauseam how sea level rise is exaggerated, but that doesn't stop it from rising unexpectedly fast from ice melting faster than predicted.

[unbound]

Christopher Monckton's BS has been debunked time and time again. The only thing amazing about him is that so many idiots still fall for his schtick.

Keep in mind that Christopher Monckton (former politician) has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism (seriously, look it up). He is an expert how? Oh yeah, he says things people want to hear.

Here are some articles to help you understand reality:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._to_grasp.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warm...global-warming

[Draco-Onis]

That doesn't mean what he is saying isn't true.

right why should I believe a doctor when the homeless guy around the corner says he knows exactly what's wrong with me

[Dezerte]

This doesn't mean that what he is saying in his presentation isn't true.

I did not say that. It does however mean that if you honestly want to have a discussion you shouldn't "poison the well" by using such a controversial figure. If you seek discussion do what I asked of you a few posts ago: write a short list of his claims, that way we remove him out of the equation.

[Deleted]

Christopher Monckton's BS has been debunked time and time again. The only thing amazing about him is that so many idiots still fall for his schtick.

Keep in mind that Christopher Monckton (former politician) has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism (seriously, look it up). He is an expert how? Oh yeah, he says things people want to hear.

Here are some articles to help you understand reality:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._to_grasp.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warm...global-warming

Well what he is saying in that recent 2016 presentation hasn't been debunked by anyone so far (from what my internet search reveals). I posted a thread about this on a couple of climate change forums and no one has replied.

Maybe the math is too difficult for some people, or maybe he really has exposed the whole global warming narrative as a scam.

Read his paper 'Why models run hot'.

[Kryos]

Take a look at this presentation. He explains how the IPCC cherry picked tree ring data when creating that hockey stick graph. They also cherry pick the gradient on the sin x curve to say 'The rate of global warming is increasing' when it is not.

And? What does that have to do with anything? IPCC is just one source of data. There are many others, they all conclude the same. Global warming is happening. You can't argue facts away. It also is completely irrelevant since we will all go solar during the next two decades. Even in Saudi Arabia it's now cheaper to run solar farms instead of burning oil:


People are bad at understanding disruptive technology. In 20 years people won't understand how you could burn stuff to power your car or heat your home since it will be way cheaper to use solar energy.

[Deleted]

[sarahtasher]

OP, your videos does not work as well on people that are not brainwashed into believing them.

[Kryos]

Reminds me of british doctors that mocked the idea of washing your hands because there are "invisible small creatures called bacteria that make people sick".

[Deleted]

And? What does that have to do with anything? IPCC is just one source of data. There are many others, they all conclude the same. Global warming is happening. You can't argue facts away. It also is completely irrelevant since we will all go solar during the next two decades. Even in Saudi Arabia it's now cheaper to run solar farms instead of burning oil:


People are bad at understanding disruptive technology. In 20 years people won't understand how you could burn stuff to power your car or heat your home since it will be way cheaper to use solar energy.

The IPCC is more than a source of data. It is international organisation that takes all the data from thousands of scientists from around the world and their climate models, and merges it together in their CMIP5 model. During this process, individual data sets from the various sources are cherry picked, distorted and changed to produce graphs that support the AGW narrative. Then there is the problem of scientists having no choice but to research and support AGW to get funding and make a career (even if they know it is wrong) because it supports the current narrative of AGW in the media and across the lefty universities.

[Revi]

Well what he is saying in that recent 2016 presentation hasn't been debunked by anyone so far (from what my internet search reveals). I posted a thread about this on a couple of climate change forums and no one has replied.

Maybe the math is too difficult for some people, or maybe he really has exposed the whole global warming narrative as a scam.

Read his paper 'Why models run hot'.

Here's a compilation of his common claims debunked:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

[Kryos]

The IPCC is more than a source of data. It is international organisation that takes all the data from thousands of scientists from around the world and their climate models, and merges it together in their CMIP5 model. During this process, the data is cherry picked, distorted and changed to produce graphs that support the AGW narrative. Then there is the problem of scientists having no choice but to research and support AGW to get funding and make a career (even if they know it is wrong) because it supports the current narrative of AGW in the media and across the lefty universities.

That's why their data is their data conclusion. Just check the sources and you have thousands of data points that all conclude the same: Global warming is real. IPCC maybe made it more dramatic, but that basic reality is that we already have a global warming. There is no way to deny it without making up bullshit or picking way more selective than IPCC. Again, all this is irrelevant since we will go clean and solar anyway. So why the big debate about global warming? The markets will make us use clean energy.