Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
July 4th, 2010 | Author: nyt
Alex welcomes Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and inventor. Monckton has been at the forefront of criticizing the CRU emails and the fraudulent climate change scam. scienceandpublicpolicy.org prisonplanet.tv
CHRIS MONCKTON (10/14/09) was “FACT-CHECKED” by a real scientist.
Oops!!!
Here is a brilliant “point-by-point” annotated refutation of Lord Monckton’s unabashed lies & disinformation regarding:
CO2 levels & global warming
Sea Level rise
Melting polar ice
Polar Bears
Medieval Warm Period
Ocean Acidification
Solar Irradiance
See YouTube:
Abraham vs. Monckton
/watch?v=QpOrjaWlC_E
(John Abraham, PhD, is a Professor of Engineering (Thermal & Fluid Mechanics) with 80 published papers & patents.)
@MinDBlanK1
I didn’t ignore your claims. I pointed out why your claims are not valid. The “climategate” emails were not brushed under the carpet. There was an investigation and it found that the climate data was valid.
tinyurl com/ydg4osh
Any more unsupported silly claims you wish to present?
@acidgawd999 I have you ignore it all, when you understand the dodgy dealing that went on (Email scandle brushed under carpet, NEVER DENIED) you will understand why it is a sham.
LMFAO at how retarded you lot really are….
@MinDBlanK1
LMFAO
“Peer Review is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals.”
And, you are so far unable to show how anything regarding AGW stinks.
@acidgawd999 I have given you a peer-reviewed artical.
Also time to stop banging on about peer-review the whole thing stinks!
oh dear.. this is a bit outdated. the emails haven’t really come to much have they? damn. oh well.. to the science then. what? no science? nothing? this is a disturbing joke. desperate.
@MinDBlanK1
Which one of my posts contains someone elses’s opinion.
I have yet to revert to shoddy arguments or pseudo science. My information is a summary of peer reviewed science.
I would be interested in the source of your erroneous claims.
@acidgawd999 Regardless, I like how you answer one of three posts with someone elses opinion, not yours, but one you agree with.
You lot always did revert to shoddy arguments about everything other than the issue, because the facts don’t agree with your “no proofs” pesudo-science.
@MinDBlanK1
“The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the mountains’ rocks absorbed enough greenhouse gas to freeze the planet.”
Time for you to study the carbon cycle.
tinyurl com/2dh92sy
@MinDBlanK1
(cont.) In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”
–Sir Karl Popper
@MinDBlanK1
“… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). (cont.)
@MinDBlanK1
I have thoroughly eviscerated your claim relating to CO2 in the past (of course you helped with your little comment about GEOCARB III which makes my point for me tinyurl com/27vh465) and showed why your argument against any sort of scientific consensus isn’t a valid argument against AGW. If addressing the main point squarely as I have is talking rubbish, then perhaps up is down, black is white and night is day.
@acidgawd999 But then, here I am showing you, you talk rubbish and you dont show me you aint. You just go off on how delusional or deluded or stupid or thick or retarded or braindead I am, you win, for sure!
@acidgawd999 All this coming from a guy who claims Science proves nothing hahaha. It is either Scientific Theory or Fact is it not? You do know what a Fact is dont you? You do know what a theory is dont you? Are you confused?
@acidgawd999 You discredited yourself, your blinded.
I quoted your claim of lower co2 matched with lower sun activity, where is this proof? There is none, you claimed a SMALL section of earths history as if it backed you up. Delusional? PFF
7000ppm Earth Max Global Temp 22-24 °C around 500-600 million years ago, 22-24 °C Max again 170 million years ago 3000ppm.
So no, NO MATCH! as you suggest, oh, and also, what caused CO2 to decline??
Dinosaur carbon taxes?
Stop lying to yourself.
@MinDBlanK1
Hmm, I discredit your claims and you are unable to counter with anything of any validity and I lost the debate? You almost make me wish I could be delusional like you, but I just have too much contempt for the stupid.
@acidgawd999 “When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate”
It is not grammer that is your problem, but losing a debate, name calling, avoiding issues and then just down right ignoring facts and making shit up.
Good day….
@MinDBlanK1
Of course the sun affects the climate. Who is not admitting that? The point is that the changes in CO2, and not the sun, are what is causing current warming.
As for past climate it might be worth your time to watch this video:
tinyurl com/ybng2vu
@MinDBlanK1
That isn’t what I suggested. To put it your way, to suggest that at all times in the past when CO2 was higher, than it is today, temperatures were always colder in comparison to today is retarded. You still seem to have some trouble comprehending my comments. The grammar might not be perfect but my comments are in plain English and should be easy enough to grasp.
@acidgawd999 BUT, at least you admit the sun affects the climate, much more than others haha!
@acidgawd999 Name calling now, its how you lot work….
But to suggest that the sun was at a lower level at the SAME time as ALL the past higher CO2 limits is retarded.
I have no idea what im talking about? You make it up!
@MinDBlanK1
It would appear that it is your poor reading comprehension that is ridiculous. Maybe try reading my comment three or four more times and if it still doesn’t get through your thick skull try adding an extra hole…anything 9mm or bigger should get the job done.
@MinDBlanK1
I answered your question. Your question didn’t involve anything that “proves” AGW. Climate science does not contain proofs so either you are completely confused are just babbling on again about shit you know little if anything about.
To answer your question again, and this is all the answer you require if you aren’t a completely brain dead moron:
“When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.”
@acidgawd999 So the sun was less active over the last 200 million years than today? Rediculous again…
@acidgawd999 Rediculous! Take a tiny slice of the history of earth and use it to back up a completely flawed THEORY! We all know temperature proceeds CO2.
GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric co2 over phanerozic time