Posted on 04/18/2018 10:01:21 PM PDT by SteveH
Anyone else watch nova this evening? It did seem to make a somewhat good case though at the same time seemed to duck confronting skeptic arguments directly or at least so it seemed to me. I am not following this at a level of detail that I feel competent to debate one way or another so I am curious for others' reactions.
This guy is hated by the left, because he speaks the truth, and they won't engage him in debate. When they do, he mops the floor with them. There are a boatload of videos of his talks out there, this is just one link below. He is smart, funny, and serious all at the same time. He looks funny, and he knows it to, which commands my respect:
The London Conference on Climate Change 2016 Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The next question is how would you even begin to evaluate the impact of changes made by man.
First you would need to start with a climate model that works.
They don’t have one.
Game, set, match.
Algore got rich.
End of story.
If they had a climate model that worked, they could initialize it to the conditions of 1918, run a 100-year prediction, and have it match the recorded observations of the last 100 years.
If they could do that, they would have, and they’d be shouting it from the rooftops.
They aren’t, which means they haven’t, which means they can’t, which means they don’t.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Interesting that they make a big deal about 800,000 year old air samples from Antarctica, as though that sampled air typified global air. Air samples from Nepal will differ substantially from air samples in South Carolina. As the cyclical weather changed, so does plant life..up or down.
They showed a graph of how the model accurately predicted the weather trends over the last century. Duh. Of course it would because it was based on that data!
They also used very overly positive words to describe the models. They did admit that there are very many variables that have an unknown impact, but then went on ignoring that fact. This means carbon may or may not be causative factor.
A glaring hole was the total lack of a worldwide perspective. Even if carbon is an issue, efforts in one country can be thoroughly inconsequential due to polluters like China and India.
The unstated conclusion of the show’s fear-mongering is that there are too many people, and people in other nations ought to stay poor so they don’t impact the environment.
Heheh, if you looked at that link I gave you, you might start your head swimming with all the math! That wasn’t the one I really wanted to send you, though you don’t even need to know math to understand that he is explaining why their predictions are all wrong due to a LOT of ASSUMPTIONS they make that are FAULTY (and the IPCC KNOWS they are faulty!) with the bottom line of:
Are we going to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on something we cannot change, we aren’t going to be able to affect by decreasing CO2, and is going to follow natural patterns of change in any case?
It is all about redistribution of wealth from wealthier countries to 2nd and 3rd world countries, suppression of industry (energy consumption) because industry is bad for the environment, setting up the UN with the ability to levy taxes (and do what they will with that money) and most of all, erode sovereignty of countries, because to them, all the problems of the world are caused by and exacerbated by borders. No borders, one government, and all our problems are solved (according to them).
That is what man-caused climate alarmism is all about, my FRiend.
This link is a little less technical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h51IP3Z_A9A
*****************************************************
You are going to read about Lord Monckton being “debunked” and such, but if you really want to see how the Left (Climate Alarmists) go about “debunking” him, check this eye-opening appearance he made in front of a Congressional committee, and see how they dishonorably and shamefully attack him, a foreigner appearing as a courtesy because he was asked to appear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cssne9Q5KM
They attack him on his appearance, his status as a Lord, anything but the science. In particular, watch the reprehensible treatment by Rep. Inslee (DEMOCRAT) at about 14:25 into it.
Shameful, made me embarrassed to be an American.
The video is available at:
https://video.wkar.org/video/3011569146/
Description:
Disastrous hurricanes. Widespread droughts and wildfires. Withering heat. Extreme rainfall. It is hard not to conclude that something’s up with the weather, and many scientists agree. It’s the result of the weather machine itself—our climate—changing, becoming hotter and more erratic. In this 2-hour documentary, NOVA will cut through the confusion around climate change.
Agreed, but an even more fundamental question is:
What is the ideal climate? Is it the climate that exists everywhere on earth today? Or is it the climate from 30 years ago?
Or from 10,000 years ago when there was a mile of ice on top of us? (Ice climbers and skiers might argue THAT is their ideal climate!)
We are already at a mini-ice age, 128 days of January here in MI.
Looks dead out, it has snowed 15 of the last 18 days and tonight it will be in the 20°’s. Had to scrape car windows this morning.
Temps have been running 15° to 20° below average for a month, it is normal this time of year to see daffodils, forsythia, crocus, some fruit trees and other flora blossoming.
Not this year, it looks like a nuclear wasteland outside - just as it did as we had the record cold and snowy winter only a few years ago.
Only an imbecile or entity on the gummit handout train like academia/corrupt science/snowflakes would believe this hoax.
You mention global warming around here and the person looks like a drunk camel to the rest of us.
PBS is not on my “TV radar screen”.
“Why do scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, and that human activity is causing it?”
That is all you need to know to not waste one second of your time watching this garbage.
I saw a documentary where the Great Barrier Reef was high and dry. When the ocean level rose, the reef came back to life.
Ancient drawings showing sea creatures and fish and people at a place which is now in the middle of a YUGE desert. It wasn’t always a desert.
Yes the climate has changed. It will continue to change.
MAN has NOTHING to do with it. Humans are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
You may not know—when they interview TV anchors the number one criteria is how trusted they are by focus groups.
Cycles come and go
It’ll change
They are dead wrong.
End of story.
No review of Globull warming can take place without considering the following graph:
The scam artists LOWERED the pre-2000 temperature history and RAISED the post 2000 temperatures. The ADUSTED TEMPERATURE line shows a clear trend of rising temperatures (ADJUSTED).
BUT looking at the raw temperature data (blue line which is measured), there is no trend of rising temperatures as the 1930's were clearly warmer than the recent temperature trend shows.
Since the weather report is always wrong. I do not believe any of these computer modeled predictions. It is all a scam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.