6
Feb
Feb
Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group
Lord Monckton is having just too much fun Down Under. The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, architect, mathematician and climate change sceptic, while on a speaking tour of Australia to spread his message that climate change activists are “bed-wetters and liars, ” took the time to debate Rupert Posner from The Climate Group, who claims dangerous man-made global warming is occurring and action must be taken to stop it now. The debate was on the on Mornings with Jon Faine show.
Listen to the debate:
[audio:monckton-posner-debate.mp3]
Source: ABC Melbourne – Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Possibly related posts:
- “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed” by Lord Monckton– a free 43-page report for download
- Lord Monckton calls out Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
- Lord Monckton rips Scientific American’s climate lies
- Lord Monckton: “Come on Al baby, I’m waiting.”
- Lord Monckton takes apart a Greenpeace activist with facts
Kick his weasel ass Lord Monckton!!!!!!!
Grab a beer and some popcorn and sit down to right royal entertainment. What a joy to listen to a man on top form. Lord Monckton hit hard with fact upon fact pertinent to every question put to him. However, Posner bluffed and blustered and failed to cite facts preferring to appeal to UN authority and the fast-eroding and fictitious consensus. In conclusion, the facts won the argument. Monckton thrashed Posner hands down.
Lord Monckton is a true saint!
He eloquently and coherently laid out the solid science. China is furiously manufacturing green goods to pedal to the rest of the world’s previously thriving economies that now have been strangled by meaningless pro-AGW regulations. Ironically, production of these sustainable goods is all powered by coal. A win-win for China; a lose-lose for the West. It’s completely illogical to claim that they are “going green” by firing up the coal plants in order to produce sustainable energy components. They have absolutely no intention of actually using these themselves.
Lord Monckton was asked how enacting the proposed policies on this flawed science will be detrimental. Whilst listing the ultimate harm caused by these ridiculous actions, Posner interrupts with the alarmist straw man, “these things are irrelevant as to the science of global warming.” When they continuously harp on this point as the patented retort for every obvious defect of the alarmist position, it is becoming increasingly suspicious. This was the response to the rampant debauchery illustrated in the Climategate emails. Even just last week when the ICO confirmed that the unethical scientists at UEA intentionally breeched the UK FOIA laws, this was their reaction.
Now that extreme weather events have conclusively shown to be completely unrelated to global warming, why did Posner regurgitate this lie? He completely discredited himself. What was with the anecdotal point about his buddy who scuba dives? Lord Monckton slammed him with the actual data!
I hope he comes to the US and takes on our true-believers. I’m all in favor of protecting the environment. But don’t insult me with name-calling and agenda-driven propaganda masquerading as sound science.
15:38 Posner: “Lord Christopher knows that the things he’s talking about have not been peer-reviewed”
Posner, go home and check the facts. You will find that Lord Monckton is right. He was citing peer-reviewed articles.
Just because the IPCC indulges in using non-peer reviewed sources (Glaciergate, Amazongate etc.) Posner thinks that everyone is up to the same shabby actiovities!
Quite hilarious – there was certainly a denier of reality in the debate, and it wasn’t Lord Monckton!..
It doesn’t qualify as a debate when there is no rebuttal of assertions, and the “moderator” joins in on the warmer side, including the adhoms.
Faine is seen as a joke in Australia for that reason. To add insult to injury Faine is on the payroll of the publicly funded broadcaster.
My taxes at work – not happy at all.
A plea to Lord Moncton:
“They” do not hesitate to slaughter those who very effectively oppose them and show them up for what they are-extreme criminals without conscience.
“The director of U.S. national intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee the government has the right to kill Americans abroad.”
It is difficult to tell the difference between nationalities from up there or in the dark.
Brilliant work by Lord Monckton, showing an extraordinary grasp of the facts, arguments, and viewpoints involved.
I found Rupert Posner’s comments and his manner revolting, offensive, condescending, and lacking in grace.
Jon Faine was very fair towards both his guests and their views.
[...] Lord Monckton toert rond in Australie met goed gevolg (audio bijlage). [...]
being peer reviewed is not the same as having something peer reviewed and passed for publication in a scientific journal? anyone who agrees with moncktons science, knows nothing of the science . if you check moncktons money trail ,it will lead back to exxon .. and he has the hide to question the funding of anyone ? absolutely laughable.
an explosion of land plants during the cambrian period ? the north polar icecaps ‘almost disappearing during the regional medieval warming period ? climate has low sensitivity then comments about past extreme climate change. extreme climate change would require climate with high sensitivity ? i could go on . there are literally hundreds of examples of moncktons incorrect and unqualified science. very entertaining speaker. so are most charlatans. thats how they attract people. usually people who no less than they do. if that is possible ?
Actually, Sir Moncton is correct. The point is that the driver for climate change is not human activity, but solar activity and other earthly phenomenon that drive climate on earth. As for Sir Moncton not being a scientist…his critique of the climate modeling was quite apt, pointing out the altering of well defined physical constants required to obtain the desired results.
As for the ‘science’ of climate, one must come to grips with the refusal to include the water/water vapor/convection/condensation loop in the model. It is this water loop that dampens the variations of solar energy to stabilize climate on earth. NASA publications admit that the water loop is not well understood…meaning that they choose not to incorporate this in their model. Yet they are quick to point out that violent storms are brewed by higher concentrations of water vapor. It is the climate change that is pseudo science, not that of Sir Moncton!
robert fanning , sorry lord monckton is in correct . we are going through a solar minimum so present warming cannot be explained by solar activity.. c02 is a forcing agent, as volcanic activity, the milankovitch cycles . without green house gases solar activity would not be enough to warm the planet
Ummmm what warming? If you would come out from underneath your blanket you would have read there’s no warming sine 1995. Your icon Professor Jones even admits it. Now go back to your Greenpeace Talking Points Manual and dredge up some more busted science so we can have more fun with you. I’m sure someone else is waiting to shoot you down in flames.
if lord monckton is not a scientist , his views are not peer reviewed. his criticism of things he does not fully understand, while not irrelevant are based unqualified
Since you talk about peer-review you should check out the peer-review process on the tripe you believe in. They only let it be “peer-reviewed” by those who would not dissagree, any real scientist who questioned anything was not allowed into the process.
Lord Moncton is trustworthy. Him not being a scientist is a moot point, it isn’t what diploma hangs on your wall it is what you know. Beleive me I know plenty of people with degrees who have no common sense whatsoever. It is really only a piece of paper. It’s the person behind it that counts, or not, as the case may be.
all the deniers have one thing in common. a complete lack of science in the comments . its eiither a silly conspiracy theory involving all the worlds scientists , nasa, the world met , politicians and even the pope ?once the debate gets scientific they have no real argument . they must keep it political at all costs
So where is your scientific proof? I see nothing no charts, graphs, formulas…..nothing. All you do is proselytize. This is why they liken AGW belivers to being a religion…..because they have no actual proof, it’s only an exercise in faith.
If you want anti-AGW arguments I’d suggest you read some of the articles on this site, which evidently you have not.
him not being a scientist is a ‘vital ‘ point .your claim that monckton is ”trustworthy” is laughable. you must be ignoring his track record completely ? his lies are well known and documented eg . he claims he won the nobel prize , for one . his doctoring of scientific charts another, his links to the oil industry another. you are easily conned. your views of the peer review process, likewise are misguided and based on nothing more than conspiracy nonsense. have you read the 1600 pages of the ipcc report. or the” complete” east anglia emails in the correct context. my bet is you are just taking moncktons word for most things? not a wise move
So back it up…show me proof of all this. You won’t because you can’t it is all 2nd hand information you heard from someone else.
by the way,many qualified scientists also have commonsense to go with their credentials. with something as complex as climate science, qualifications and peer review are the only way to go. i suggest you study the scientific process a little more. do you agree with monckton that land plants flourished during cambrian times ? lands plants did not evolve until after the cambrian period . another example of the importance of being a qualified scientist
proof….don’t spout crap…show proof.
john , there is no scientific consensus that god exists. so comparing science to religion is a poor analogy. all of my views have been peer reviewed and have the scientific consensus to back them. you have nothing but conspiracy theory. there is empirical evidence for the warming of the planet and mountains of powerful circumstantial evidence to support the climate change argument. my guess is you do not even understand what global warming actually is? and that you mistake short term weather for long term climate trend. the usual weakness in the denier argument
john, do you believe that smoking causes cancer ? or that hiv causes aids? there is no definite proof for either. the case for both is totally circumstantial. climate change is a combination of empirical evidence and circumstantial . how can you have definite proof for things that may happen in the future. where is your proof that there is a conspiracy to form a one world communist govt as monckton claims? how do you explain present warming when there is a solar minimum? when questions are asked, deniers try and change the subject as plimer did in his debate with monbiot on the abc recently. you have no scientific basis in anything you say
john where is that commonsense you mention ? you are willing to trust the word of someone [ monckton, plimer , singer, clindzen , carter ] by people who are funded by big business who have a vested interest in stopping action on climate change. that is showing a lack of commonsense. even their fraudulant science, that a five year old can pick holes in, you accept . this again shows a lack of commonsense.. what would you consider ”proof ” that climate is changing? a completely ruined planet would probably suffice [ maybe not even that ] but then it will be a little late eh ?
john, my opinions are definitely ‘second hand ‘ just as my views on all things that im not qualified in are second hand. just as ‘your ‘ views are second hand. the difference is my views on the subject come from years of research by thousands of experts in the field. yours come from, a non peer reviewed, scientifically incorrect journalist or a group of scientists who represent the oil industry. again that word ‘commonsense’ comes into the argument?
Quit asking me stupid questions from your beliver manual and answer my questions. Until then you don’t deserve any replies form me. You are basing all your BS on yesterdays “facts” you need to read up on what’s been happening. You obviously are cluless and either unaware or in denial of realityl. Au revoir!
i have completely researched denier so called science, and i found it to be junk in the main. when a noted professor [ plimer ] claims that volcanos emit more c02 than man, that there was an explosion of land plants during the cambrian period [ monckton ] that molten rock warms the oceans [ plimer ] that malaria is prevailant in cold climates [ plimer] that glaciers are not melting etc . pardon me for thinking, that this is JUNK” and anyone who believes it is either mentally ill or somewhat retarded
Don’t know about the other claims you claim to have found, but the glaciers have been melting long before man-induced increase in atmospheric CO2, so despite the correlation there is no causation, in fact, to take the bed-wetters’ argument, melting glaciers increase CO2 concentrations (think about it – which came first?! obviously that statement is utter nonsense, but it illustrates causation vs correlation argument well). Besides, whatever it is you think you found, Prof. Jones already admitted there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming…
asking a question like ‘ do you believe land plants flourished during cambrian times ? is not stupid. as they patently did not ? however this is what moncktons uses as an argument to back his claims on the so called ‘benefits ‘ of getting more c02 into the atmosphere. the question is relevant. if you answer no i dont believe it. you are admitting that moncktons premise is faulty . if you answer ‘yes you do believe it’ that makes you look rather silly. i can understand why you prefer not to answer that simple question . it puts you in a no win situation. however, avoidance is a dead set clue that your are dishonest?