tomllewis

Lord Monckton confronting a member of Greenpeace with her ignorance!

Actually I felt a little sorry for this woman, however, she’s probably like 98% of all the people who believe in AGW.

Tagged Climategate, Environmentalism, Lord Monckton

§ 77 Responses to Lord Monckton adresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming"

• tomllewis says:

  December 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  Georg, That’s a great idea.

  Gore has the MSM on his side. Hard to battle ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, etc etc. We have Fox and a few publications. Still, with the CRU Climategate, it’s encouraging.
• sunzeneise says:

  December 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  One can lead a horse to water, but why bother?
• tomllewis says:

  December 13, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  Sunzeneise, It is very hard to try to persuade people who already have their minds made up, but the stakes are pretty high. I”m glad there are people more articulate than me.
• john says:

  December 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm

  The interview must be a setup. She is wearing fur?
• andycanuck says:

  December 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  Is fake fur attempted murder, John?
  ;^)
• John M says:

  December 13, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  Monkton lies. The plot

  http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

  shows the enormous decline in sea ice since 1979 yet he states this does not exist. What a total ratbag. Fortunately he’s not a scientist so one doesn’t scream “fraud” – it’s just wilfull ignorance by a silly toff.
• Robbie says:

  December 13, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  I like hurricanes because the relatively greater warming of the Artic should predict less hurricanes if it’s reducing the temperature difference between cooler northern air and warmer air in the tropical areas. The bias towards believing that warming is absolutely on an upswing, neccessarily manmade, neccessarily not only negative but catastrophic is so bedrock that such an accessible and obvious prediction is turned on its head as a matter of course!
• Karl says:

  December 13, 2009 at 8:02 pm

  Here is the Arctic ice cover: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
  Not a enormous decline but some.

  Here is the Antarctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
  Here, around the biggest chunk of ice in the world, there has been no loss of sea ice, actually it has increase a bit.
• tomllewis says:

  December 13, 2009 at 8:09 pm

  Thanks for the graphs Karl.
• Wacky Hermit says:

  December 13, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  I love how she goes on about how she reads all these papers to inform herself, then says that she’s not interested in verifying Monckton’s claims because she just doesn’t have time. If she has the time and capacity to read scientific papers, why wouldn’t she have the time and capacity to read other scientific papers?
• tomllewis says:

  December 13, 2009 at 9:20 pm

  Sarah, you are so right. That’s what so disappointing about this whole Mann-made global warming battle. She probably is representative of 95% of the Warmongers.
• w3bgrrl says:

  December 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  …or, you can lead an enviro-whacko to data, but you can’t make them think.
• w3bgrrl says:

  December 13, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  John M: last I checked, the globe has two hemispheres. Your plot is for one of them. Monckton addressed GLOBAL sea ice extent.
• tomllewis says:

  December 13, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  good one w3grrl
• Wellington says:

  December 14, 2009 at 12:10 am

  John M:

  Besides the above mentioned “global balance” of ice, have you ever heard of the “polar see-saw” temperature phenomenon?

  You sure are a quick draw but if you check the data you may find you were mistaken with your attack. Or is it a question of faith for you, too?
• Lord Monckton schools a Greenpeace warming activist | Les Jones says:

  December 14, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  [...] So good. He corrects her on temperature changes over the last decade (down, rather than up), sea ice changes (not changing significantly), and Atlantic hurricanes (decreasing, not increasing). [...]
• Josh Reiter says:

  December 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  The ice content of the artic doesn’t have as much impact as the antarctic. Ice that is already in water will not cause the water level to rise when it melts (think glass of ice water). The ice that is locked on solid ground that melts into the ocean on the other hand will certainly cause some concern. So, the antarctic is the region of serious concern as far as sea levels. Fortunately, the ice has been increasing down there.
• Brian C. says:

  December 14, 2009 at 8:24 pm

  What so interesting about the nature of the debate is that on the one hand there are ascertainable facts, and on the other there are theoretical prediction models. It is one thing to acknowledge a warming trend, quite another altogether to say we should add costs to the economy and reduce productivity, to reduce carbon.

  Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Cool it!” did not dispute a warming trend, but contended against rigidly resolving to restrict carbon emissions without comparing the costs-benefits of other strategies.
• tomllewis says:

  December 14, 2009 at 8:50 pm

  Brian, you are so right. It’s such a pleasure when people are actually rational – like Lomborg.
• ben says:

  December 15, 2009 at 10:49 am

  So where’s John M. now?? The point is the planet is more powerful then we could ever hope to be.
• ben says:

  December 15, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Also, you know really, a bunch of graphs actually proves nothing. …as you can tell by the ones in these posts that conflict with each other. Just ask an economist.
• tomllewis says:

  December 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm

  Great point John. I’ve said for many years how incredibly egocentric the “end of the world” scaremongers are. The planet is a lot more self-sustaining than humans, who are pretty insignificant.
• Mel Shapiro says:

  December 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Global Warming: it’s a religion. The phrase I hear most often, when “Climate Change is discussed is, “I believe.” This I have to believe is partially the result in the Global Loss of Religion (not counting Islam). People have to have something to “believe” in …. Al Gore, the new Messiah. Green Peace, et al,, the new Disciples.
• tomllewis says:

  December 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm

  Mel, It really is a religion for them. It’s why they so frequently claim it’s “settled science.” For them, it is. They just don’t recognize that theirs is an act of faith.
• Les Ingram says:

  December 24, 2009 at 8:08 am

  Nature puts 30 times as much carbon into the atmosphere as man does. We’ve had 50 ice ages (glacial and interglacial periods) over the last 3 million years–man had nothing to do with any of those. Where I live was under a mile of ice only a few thousand years ago! Since 1850 man has put 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere; however, NATURE puts 200 BILLION TONS INTO THE AIR EVERY YEAR. So, NATURE puts more carbon into the atmosphere in a single year than man has since the Industrial Revolution. AGW is based on politics, not science. Wake up. Like so many other “scares” (swine flu, socialized medicine, “they’ll come for your children in the night,” etc.), AGW is designed to frighten you, control you, and tax your behavior and your pocketbook!
• tomllewis says:

  December 24, 2009 at 10:47 am

  Les, I’m sorry to write that I agree with everything you said. I hope we’re able to stop the mass hysteria.
• Dee Livengood says:

  February 25, 2010 at 9:09 pm

  On my last Alaska cruise into the Glacier Bay our National Parks guide showed the history of glacier melting over the last 200 years. All of the major melting occurred between 1800 and 1960, before SUVs were invented. Some of the glaciers are growing now. Anyone can verify this with little effort.