Viscount Monckton fisks Obama

Viscount Monckton has done the unthinkable, he has challenged the great, the only, the wondrous, Obama and his woolly thinking on Climate Change.

Obama said;

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.”

Viscount Monckton retorts with facts;

Few challenges facing America and the world are less urgent than combating the non-problem of “global warming”. On all measures, there has been no increase in global mean surface temperatures since 1995; and, according to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, near-surface temperatures in 2008 will be lower than in 1980, 28 years ago, the first complete year of satellite observations. On all measures, global temperatures have been falling for seven full years since late 2001. The January-to-January fall in temperatures between 2007 and 2008 was the greatest since global temperature records were first compiled in 1880, 128 years ago. The rate of new Arctic sea-ice formation in mid-October 2008 was among the fastest since satellite records began almost 30 years ago. There has been no decline whatsoever in the total global extent of sea ice since satellite records began. New records for the extent of northern-hemisphere snow cover were observed by the satellites in the winter of 2001 and again in 2007. This year, many ski resorts are opening early as Arctic weather strikes. Many temperature stations in the northern hemisphere recorded record low temperatures in October/November 2008.

So Obama got it wrong, in fact so spectacularly wrong it beggars belief. One wonders when the rest of the “believers” are going to wake up the the real facts not the manufacturered pseudo-science of the IPCC. Yet these tossers all say that the science is settled, that there is consensus, this most demonstrably is false as Viscount Monckton points outs;

Obama is not correct to say, “The science is not in dispute.” Across all disciplines, some 31,000 scientists approached by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2007/8 signed a declaration to the effect that “global warming” is not a global crisis and that humankind has very little influence over the climate. A survey of climatologists and scientists in related fields by Van Storch (2005/6) established that a considerable proportion of respondents did not believe the alarmist notions disseminated by Al Gore or the UN climate-change panel. The office of Senator James Inhofe maintains a list of more than 500 scientists in climate and related fields who have made public statements questioning at least one aspect of what has falsely been presented as a scientific “consensus”.

In any event, as the late Michael Crichton used to say, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science: if it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” Science is not done by consensus: and, even if it were, the evidence is that a very considerable body of scientists both within and beyond climatology have grave doubts about the notion of a significant and damaging human influence on the climate.

Viscount Monckton goes on to destroy any shred of credibility Obama has on this issue, line by line and detail by detail. Warmists and other co-religionists would do well to educate themselves. Of course, for daring to differ in opinion from the Great Obama he will now be vilified. Be that as it may, the truth is the truth and facts are facts.

  • Harpoon

    Heh … looks to me like you have adopted an unreasonable and trenchant position on the issue. On a couple of the points you’ve raised, I remember posting here about them months ago. And there’s little point in talking to you about it the science if you’re going to insist on incontrovertable proof. That would be religeous rather than scientific. Clearly, anyone talking to you on this issue is wasting their breath. Suffice to say that you are probably wasting your breath trying to campaign against politicians doing stuff about climate change, since the world is moving in the other direction.

    Regarding the putative left/right divide on climate change, I’m not sure it exists. But if it does exist, it could be that seriously addressing the implications of climate change may sit more comfortably with left-of-centre policies. Economic conservatives tend to get all confused and angry in any situation where a situation can’t be monetised or where monetisation has the potential to exert seriously negative influence on the personal wealth of well-off people.

  • Whaleoil

    Didn’t think you had the goods, and now you have proved it.

    You accuse me of a trechant position yet it isn’t me that constantly says the “science is settled”. That to me sounds rather trenchant.

    Finally accusing those on the right of being climate sceptics because a situation can’t be monetized or if it is it will hurt them finacially is laughable. Have you heard about the trade in cardon credits? Sounds like monetization to me. You are dead wrong, again. The well-off people CAN afford any measure but can see the enormous damage that such systems would cause the economy and thus the less well off. The answer you seek but are too afraid to speak is that this issue isn’t about saving the planet at all it is actually about controlling the masses.

  • mikeNZ

    follow the money, that’s where this leads!

    Who better to control and regulate a global market of hot air than the UN.

    yeah creditability and an independant income stream.

     

  • Harpoon

    Whale: “this issue isn’t about saving the planet at all it is actually about controlling the masses.”

    Well then. If that’s the nub of the issue for you, why bring up all those arguments around the science? You are not a scientist, and (since you insist on absolute proof that the climate change cynics are wrong) you do not understand the scientific method. 

    I suggest you might more productively spend your time exploring ways to ensure that policies addressing the issues of climate change do not exert a wrongful, unfair or overly onerous influence upon the masses.

     


  • Whaleoil

    Suggest all you like Harp-On, I choose to spend my time revealing the complete and utter hoax that is “climate change science”.

    I gave you the opportunity to present me with facts and twice now you have posted comments without a shred of evidence to prove the existance of Antropogenic Global Warming or any of the other issues I raised.

    You have been found wanting.

  • Harpoon

    Science should never be totally settled. People who say, “the science is settled” are not speaking scientifically; they’re generally speaking rhetorically. That’s what you do when you deliver a speech.

    Regarding the economics etc, I’m speculating — and that’s how I meant that comment to be read. I reckon the meme around right/left views of climate change are worth more thought.

  • Whaleoil

    Still no “evidence”.

    Look i’m no polluter, and tis is where the “climate change” silliness has gone off track. If instead of crying wolf over rising seas, hurricanes etc the discussion focussed on pollutants then we would start to get somewhere. Noone I know wants dirty, rivers, lakes, seas or air.

    But to have taxes for want of a better term for “Carbon emissions” and including CO2 in that is just plain silly. Plants require CO2 to live, the more CO2 the better for them. The plant convert that to O2 for us to breathe. We expell CO2 and away we go. To label CO2 a pollutant is bizarre.

  • Robin Hoodie

    The clever bit is that Obama can then save us all from ‘something that was never going to happen anyway’

    Hell, do I feel special!

  • YesWeDid

    Firstly you are confusing ‘climate change’ with ‘global warming’, I am sure you are capable of understanding the difference.

    And secondly, Viscount Monckton (who calls themselves Viscount?) tries to support his alternative view by presenting a state of confusion in the scientific community, it is a similar argument that people who support intelligent design use to discredit the ‘theory’ of evolution.  Scientific views are by there very nature changing and being challenged that is how things move forward in the scientific world.  

    Site a peer reviewed article in a credible scientific publication that casts doubt on ‘climate change’ and then I might start believing you.

  • Robin Hoodie

    YWD, what is wrong with a ‘Title’?

    When the Scientific Community stops getting Grant Aid for yet more discoveries about Climate Change, then we will start to have a more open mind. The same Science Community that was on the Media day after day warning us about the end of civilisation as we know it with Y2K!

    Planes to fall out of the sky, fridges and toasters to stop working. Nuclear Power Stations to implode if not in the ‘West’ then certainly Russia etc.

    Dams to crack open, Water treatment plants to seize, ICBM’s to start on their own account.

    Utter bullshit from the time honoured Scientific Community that knows fuck all about nothing.

     

     

     

  • Whaleoil

    He doesn’t call hiomself Viscount, he just is one, that is the how titles work. I am confusing nothing. I can see very well that faced with mounting evidence that anthropegenic global warming is a lie the new religionists decided to call it “climate change”.

    The small wee problem for you guys is that for years you have claimed that carbon emissions are warming the planet and now that is being proven on a daily basis to be demonstrably and palpably false you claim it is climate change. Well sorry, it doesn’t work that way, either it is warming or it isn’t, it can’t be both.

  • fishfurter

    Viscount was the name of an aircraft in common use around the world including NZ. It was a fair while ago (they had propellers) . Viscount Monckton was likely named by his mum after her  joining the five mile club, (not too sure they could fly that high ?). Some years ago when the Global warming panic started I was told by a very wise person that mankind has these World Wide panic attacks which only last approx six years or so, and that they are usually replaced by even more stupid scares. I am pleased to advise that there is only a couple of years to run on this one . The shame of it is that there are many thousands of scientists studing climate and it would have been nice if all that effort was concentrated on perhaps inventing something fantastic.

  • Harpoon

    Whale, first, a simple question: what would it take to convince you that the propositions around anthropocentric climate change are truer than those of the deniers? Be honest.

    For example, would it convince you if I could show that the points based on material from the so-called “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” are spurious? For example:

    • the thousands of names that the “Oregon Institute” cite in support of their arguments are in fact mostly not climatologists or linked closely to climate science in any way; they are (for example) engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists.
    • those scientists received a package in the mail in 2007 consisting of a colour preprint of a claimed ‘new’ article that looked like it was about to be published in Science (it wasn’t), along with an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol.
    • more info on how OISM is wrong: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

    Second, Monkton is not exactly a disinterested scientist. He is a prominent climate change denier and public policy lobyist who used to work for Maggie Thatcher.

    I can go on, but there would have to be a point  Undecided

  • Whaleoil

    Harp-on, I would want simple irrefutable facts. Really rather simple actually.

    So far all we have is made up graphs like the hockey stick, if that evidence wasn’t damning enough we had the mockumentary of An Inconvenient Truth.

    Facts such as this and this just never get explained by warmists. Most of their predictions fail to materialise and those that do aren’t as a result of anything humans have done or not done to the planet. The much awaited melting of the polar icecaps has never even come close despite repeated warnings.

    When the warmists present real, tangible facts then I may just start to believe.

  • Bok

    Simple question for Harpoon. Show me one little piece of evidence  that has not been absolutely refuted , that AGW exists. Just one. 

    We show you 30 000 scientists and you make up some fancy conspiracy theory. Yet your god’s hockey stick is shown to be a farce, and yet we have to have faith?

    Wow! You fundamentalist redneck!

    Bok

  • Harpoon

    Cameron, If I were to show you science that shows neither the troposhere chart nor the sea ice graphic is an effective rebuttal of the climate change hypothesis, you would have to admit that this bit (at least) of your argument is void or (at least) weakened. Wouldn’t you?

    [BTW, your site is performing very slowly for me, with pages taking up to 5 minutes to load. Not having similar problems anywhere else, very frustrating. Drove me away from bothering to visit for weeks]

    Bok, your post is a massive straw man. The “30,000 scientists” argument links to the so-called Oregon Institute is utterly worthless. Not worth bothering with. Do a little research into the issue. Also, when something has been “absolutely refuted,” then either the something was not science or the refutation was not science. The whole point of doing science is that it is refutable.

  • Whaleoil

    If you coulda you woulda. But you didn’t so you can’t.

    I would just love you to show me ground station recordings, I would, I would ROTFLMAO if you did that, you know showed me ground station evidence that haad to be cut and pasted to make it fit.

    Show me where Mann proves the hockey stick, go on, show me, I dare you. I mean absolutely proves the hockey stick, come on do it.

    Show me the nations that are slipping into the sea, show me the climate change refugees that Al Gore says have all be moved to New Zealand. Go on do it.

    While you are at it show me all the evidence that Al Gore says is true but a court of law found to be demonstrably false and tell me the court got it wrong.

    Show me the categoric evidence that the earth has warmed since 1998. Please, come one prove it to me, that the earth has warmed at least since 1998.

    Tell me how C02 is responsible for both global warming and global cooling, come please, at least do that.

    And tell me why almost universally the left are the drivers behind “Climate Change”.

    Then compare Mann’s graph with the real graph after Mann’s alogrithms are stripped out and all of the data is inlcuded rather than Mann’s selection and tell me Mann isn’t bullshitting us all.