Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
johnbryson's picture
johnbryson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 54
Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

Here is a very interesting episode of the Michael Coren Show on Global Warming.  Well worth listening to.  Coren interviews Lord Christopher Monkton (former science adviser to PM Margaret Thatcher), who calls David Suzuki and Al Gore the "bed wetters," the true believers in the new religion of Global Warming. The latter two have refused to debate with Monkton (or with anyone else who thoroughly knows the science and economics of the subject and disagrees with them). Lord Monkton tells us Al Gore's speaker's contract specifies a $300,000 fee, that he will not take any unscripted question, and he will not be interviewed by anyone from the media unless his staff has cleared them first (i.e. are safe and will not ask him any question he cannot answer). 

 http://www.ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17081&show=Michael%20Coren%20Show

 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

It's hard to position myself in the environmental debate given how much it's been co-opted by the ruling class.  It's become a vehicle to power (politicians, the UN) and riches (Goldman's plans for cap and trade)...you don't need to take Monkton's word on that...it's blatantly obvious.  I can't find the quote, but one of the bigshots out there said something like "the people will willingly submit to tyranny in the name of saving mother earth."  That seems true. So unfortunately we can't keep the discussion about science because politics and would-be dictators have invaded the space.  The politicization of it causes many people to rightly oppose the political grab for power even if they at the same time acknowledge human civilization is affecting earth. It also causes some to become callous to anything environmental...that's sad.  

I'll try to explain how I position myself in the interest of maybe helping us understand why this issue is so difficult...not to start a political fight.  The dialectic is setup such that you must agree with Gore or you must be anti-earth.  Not at all.  I don't subscribe to Gore-ism but I'm quite pro-earth.    

Why don't I subscribe to global warming/cooling?  Lots of reasons I don't want to go into, but I find plenty of evidence that solar cycles drive planetary climate equilibrium across the solar system (not just earth).  So I don't buy man-made warming/cooling to the degree that humans could overpower the sun and disrupt its cycles.  

[We've already had several really really long threads with people flaming each other over climate change...and of course it never goes anywhere...nobody's mind is ever changed.  That's not the point of my post.  I'm just laying out my position to make the point about how politics has made it difficult for us to have responsible, differentiated positions on the environment...we either have to subscribe to the dominant theory promoted by the elite's marketing machine or we must be evil earth haters.]

However, believing the sun is more powerful than man doesn't mean I don't think humans have damaged natural creation.  There is no question that wilderness destruction is caused by man.  There is no question that habitats, ecologies, water supplies, etc. are profoundly effected by man. There is no question industrial agriculture has created profound damage over the long-run.  There is also no question that humans suffer in their own lives by eliminating the chance of encountering a bear, seeing a sunset over Glacier Peak, having a natural habitat or permaculture type of yard, laying in an untouched midwestern grass field with your spouse watching the clouds move, etc. All of this has been largely eliminated in the name of "progress"...driving the exponential money curve.  Unfortunately the political energy behind global warming / climate change repels people from this broader environmental discussion and keeps us from dealing with the real problem of wilderness/ecology destruction and the death of wild wonder/beauty/rest/delight in our lives.  

I spend a lot of time in wilderness.  I hope to soon start building a permaculture environment to do my part to rebuild a natural earth.  I'm confident in staking out this individual position.  I'm secure in being a responsible steward of earth without succumbing to the pressure to join Gore's movement and the UN's agenda.  Unfortunately some on the "right" will consider me a hippy and some on the "left" will consider me an apostate for not joining the cause.  That's unfortunate.  The political setup has hurt our ability to have our own differentiated positions.   

 

 

 

johnbryson's picture
johnbryson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 54
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

Hi Strabes,

I completely agree with you. I went out for lunch with my boss (until now a supporter of the the current climate change agenda) , and explained Lord Christopher Monkton's position and scientific arguments (ie. increased warming of the earth causes more heat to escape into space rather than being trapped by the ozone layer) on the elites climate change agenda, and interestingly for me, I managed to convince him. I thought he would be more closed to the idea (as many people can be - on these sensitive subjects).... but I suppose the simplicity of the argument won out.

So, as Gore pursues his Goebbels communication strategy (ie. only appearing in debates where he wins, or not being asked tough questions) and the elites continue push their agenda.... sooner or later people will become aware of the alternate arguments and start asking tough questions....

John

glosta's picture
glosta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 3
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

Just watched this interview... Monkton is suspect...  I don't know about global warming, but he claims that DDT is only toxic to 2 misquitos... I just googled DDT and according to my findings, it is toxic to many creatures including humans.  Callously proclaiming apparent fallacies does not lead me to believe his other arguments.

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Not the last word...

I agree that the exploding human population is the root cause of all our ecological problems including global warming.  If we can agree on that then the scientific argument about global warming reduces to whether there is one more reason to do something about population growth.

A recent study of the drought in Georgia showed it was due to population growth causing a water shortage, not global warming.   Reference on request :-)

The joke about Monkton is that the inaccuracies found in "An Inconvenient Truth" were mainly due to "other sources of pollution" Gore did not take into account.  But what about the accurate parts?

I also agree that the problem with global warmng is not that the earth will get warmer due to CO2 but the liberal politics that singled it out as the one environmental issue.  It is too bad that Gore being a liberal democrat would become an evangelist and make money from it at the same time.  That doesn't make him Goebbels, however.

I disagree that man is not capable of over turning large scale climate cycles.  But it's not about over turning cycles it's about an observed trend and an unprecedented amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  While the observations don't go back very far, can predictions still be made from sparse data yielding a reasonable confidence?  Unfortunately, yes.  So as I see it there is a greater than 50% probability that the temperature will be between 3 and 5 degrees warmer by 2100.  Cynically, this may be a good thing because most of the population lives along the coasts...

 

 

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 652
Re: Not the last word...
r wrote:

 While the observations don't go back very far, can predictions still be made from sparse data yielding a reasonable confidence?  Unfortunately, yes.  So as I see it there is a greater than 50% probability that the temperature will be between 3 and 5 degrees warmer by 2100.  Cynically, this may be a good thing because most of the population lives along the coasts...

Try this on for size. From the depths of the last ice age to about 150 years ago, the concentraton of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 100 parts per million. In the last 150 years we have added about another 100 parts per million. If CO2 were driving the warming we ought to be baking, but we are not. Mean global temperature has risen only about one degree Fahrenheit. Nature seems to have considered all of the appropriate feedback mechanism and that one degree is what we got.  When we add about another 100 ppm over the next century, my bet is that we will get about one more degree F at most. That assumes that all of the warming of the last 150 years was driven by CO2, which is easlily not true.  Finally, though, r is right. There will be both winners and losers with warming (or any other climate change). Canadians and Siberians might think a little warming to be just peachy. Lastly, anyone who thinks that our present climate and temperatures are some stable kind of "normal" hasn't paid much attention to climate history. America and Europe have been covered in ice for 90% of the last million years. Does anyone want to make any bets on what to expect for the next million?

johnbryson's picture
johnbryson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 54
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

Hi Glosta,

I would not write Monkton off so quickly. Just because he makes claims about DDT which go against what you have found on google, it doesn't mean that he is suspect of making false claims. I have found other information showing the flip side.

Here's a quote from an article writen by Christopher Lingle who is a research scholar at the Center for Civil Society, New Delhi, and an economics professor at Universidad Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala.

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070806a1.html#

a special commission named by the U.S. National Academy of Science issued a report in September 1971 stating that "toxicity studies on DDT have provided no indication that the insecticide is unsafe for humans when used in accordance with commonly recognized practice." Nonetheless, DDT was banned in the U.S. by 1972 and, soon thereafter, in much of the world

And here is another one from the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

There's no evidence that spraying DDT in the amounts necessary to kill dangerous mosquitoes imperils crops, animals or human health. But that didn't stop green groups like the Pesticide Action Network from urging the public to celebrate World Malaria Day last month by telling "the U.S. to protect children and families from malaria without spraying pesticides like DDT inside people's homes."

 

And here is another article: http://cei.org/gencon/004,01976.cfm#

So the truth is not straight forward. There is so much politicization of science nowadays that is very important to hear both sides of the story.

John

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming

Here's my last post on the Climate Change thread:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-climate-change-it-worth-brushing/5895?page=46

Quote:

If you wish to examine the denial and misinformation campaign against the science of climate change and the organizations and people behind it, Real Climate has posted some good starting points:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/

Quote:

We often allude to the industry-funded attacks against climate change science, and the dubious cast of characters involved, here at RealClimate. In recent years, for example, we’ve commented on disinformation efforts by industry front groups such as the “Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute, and a personal favorite, The Heartland Institute, and by industry-friendly institutions such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and other media outlets that assist in the manufacture and distribution of climate change disinformation.

 When it comes to the climate change disinformation campaign, we have choosen to focus on the intellectually bankrupt nature of the scientific arguments, rather than the political motivations and the sometimes intriguing money trail. We leave it to others, including organizations such as SourceWatch.org, the sleuths at DeSmogBlog, authors such as Ross Gelbspan (author of The Heat is On, and The Boiling Point), and edited works such as Rescuing Science from Politics to deal with such issues.

If you're interested in the science of climate change, www.realclimate.org is, of course, excellent.  And, I hasten to add, ProfMandia's blog is also an excellent source.  He's very good at keeping up with the latest changes.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/summary_key_points.html

Doug

Lord Monckton appears on that thread in a few spots.

glosta

If your attribution of the two mosquito thing to Monckton is true, then that is just another preposterous claim on his part.  DDT nearly brought the peregrine falcon, the bald eagle, the osprey and other raptors to extinction.  I suppose its how you define "toxic."  It may not have been directly poisonous to the birds, but it bioaccumulated in their prey.  It resulted in soft egg shells that in turn meant the eggs were destroyed before the young could hatch.  I know we're supposed to post cites to authority in these posts, but I don't have the time right now.  Just Google DDT and raptors.  There's lots of evidence.

Doug

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Christopher Monkton on Man Made Global Warming
Stan Robertson wrote:

Try this on for size. From the depths of the last ice age to about 150 years ago, the concentraton of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 100 parts per million. In the last 150 years we have added about another 100 parts per million. If CO2 were driving the warming we ought to be baking, but we are not. Mean global temperature has risen only about one degree Fahrenheit.

I'm not following your baking argument very well, although I respect it :-).  I don't believe anyone is contending that current CO2 concentrations are  driving the weather or that there will be a run-away catastrophe.  And I don't see how your argument invalidates correlation of the temperature rise of 1 degree C with the 100 parts per million increase of CO2.  The 1 degree is a lot or a little depending on point of view.  And 100 parts per million is a lot or little depending on point of view.

Quote:

Nature seems to have considered all of the appropriate feedback mechanism and that one degree is what we got.  When we add about another 100 ppm over the next century, my bet is that we will get about one more degree F at most.

There certainly are feedback mechanisms such as absorption of CO2 by the oceans.  But making the oceans more acidic kills coral reefs.

Quote:

Lastly, anyone who thinks that our present climate and temperatures are some stable kind of "normal" hasn't paid much attention to climate history. America and Europe have been covered in ice for 90% of the last million years. Does anyone want to make any bets on what to expect for the next million?

This was the basis for my superficial statistical analysis but from another angle.  Because of long-term changes such as the earth's precession or solar output, etc., it is correct to restrict any extrapolation to a small window of time.  How long did it take for the glaciers to recede from Europe, a thousand years?  Will there be a dramatic change in conditions between now and 100-200 years from now?  If not we can discount another ice age having a major impact between now and 2100.

The probability of greater than 50% I threw out is meaningless because you need a probability of greater than 65% to be deemed "likely."   I wasn't actually saying anything.  The IPCC states that it will likely continue to get warmer,  if you agree with the IPCC.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments