Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Climate Crock takes on Lord Monckton, Part 2

Posted on  

"Climate Crock takes on Lord Monckton, Part 2"

Share:

google plus icon

Here’s Part 2 of Peter Sinclair, our favorite climate de-crocker, taking on The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB):


More on TVMOB here:

Tags:

« »

18 Responses to Climate Crock takes on Lord Monckton, Part 2

  1. mike roddy says:

    Thanks for this, Peter. A lot of us have enjoyed the laughter that His Lordship has always been able to provide. It’s way beyond eccentic: the poor Viscount has obviously got one foot in the nuthouse.

    More troubling is his ability to continue to find reporters who eagerly take notes while he talks, or audiences around the world who solemnly nod during his speeches.

  2. This is another brilliant Sinclair video. Isn’t it sad that obvious clowns such as Monckton have credibility? Unfortunately, we have to get down into the mud to point out what is obvious to us and not-so-obvious to others. Spread the word and this Sinclair URL.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    My Global Warming Blog

  3. Brewster says:

    TVMOB is becoming more extreme in his pronouncements as time goes on.

    Peter does good work, but each video just winds the Deniers up one more notch…

  4. Marc Anderson says:

    It is troubling, Mike, but if we point the reporters to take-downs like this, he’ll have a harder time of it. Great job Peter!

  5. MapleLeaf says:

    Well done Peter, another solid take down with some laughs thrown in. Will there be a Part III? Then again, one could spend one’s entire life debunking the viscount and his friends.

  6. MapleLeaf says:

    Re Marc #4,

    Here is an idea Peter. How about a mini series debunking the myths and misinformation put forth by Revkin, Pearce and their colleagues? Or just about how the media is mangling this in general. There are probably some wonderful examples out there.

  7. Ivy Bear says:

    I second MapleLeaf’s suggestion. How about discounting Revkin, the NY Times in general, Roger Pielke (Jr & Sr), Schellenberg and Nordhaus, and
    the Wall Street Journal. I know that would take a lot of video, but well worth the effort.

  8. Donal says:

    Excellent video, but Peter Sinclair missed the funniest thing about the Pinker paper- Monckton didn’t even know Pinker is a woman. Tim Lambert had a woman read out her email. The look on Monckton’s face at that moment would have been great in the video, if it was caught on the occasion.

  9. TomG says:

    Deniers are right about one thing…
    There is a conspiracy about climate change.
    The problem is they are the conspirators.
    Either by leading, Monckton being a prime example, or by following along like the duped drones that they are.

  10. caerbannog says:

    Peter deserves NSF funding for his efforts. Is there anybody out there who has experience in rustling up NSF money for educational projects?

    (The downside of NSF funding: The NSF folks would probably want Peter to tone down the “snark” a bit, which could result in a less entertaining viewing experience.)

  11. ChrisD says:

    caerbannog #10:

    No, the REAL downside of NSF funding would be that the deniers could then simply dismiss his work as paid-for propaganda, just another cog in the worldwide conspiracy of scientists, green entrepreneurs, and one-world-government types.

    As it is now, with no revenue derived from the videos, all they can do is make up witty names for him (“greensnot” is popular on YouTube) and point out that he’s a Kool-Aid drinker.

  12. caerbannog says:


    …just another cog in the worldwide conspiracy of scientists, green entrepreneurs, and one-world-government types.

    But isn’t he already one of those? ;)

  13. Andy Gunther says:

    Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, I thought I would share my response to Bret Stephen’s latest crap (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165573845958914.html) to demonstrate what an incredible resource CP is for preparing LTE and op-eds. Thanks, Joe!

    If American business leaders, whom I have always assumed to be the readership of the Wall Street Journal, are as unable to differentiate scientific fact and fiction as Mr. Bret Stephens (“What’s the Next Global Warming”, April 6, 2010), then our economic future is bleak indeed. Mr. Stephens pontificates on your pages with complete disregard for physics and almost 200 years of scientific research, constructing for himself and his readers an absurd bubble of ignorance inside which “global warming is dead.” This would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

    The concept of global warming was proposed in 1896 based upon physical principles discovered earlier in the 19th Century (this is twenty years before the concept of continental drift was introduced to science). The objective skepticism that is the heart of the scientific process has tested and refined this scientific idea, and its predictions continue to be verified by observations.

    Previous generations of scientists predicted that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were building up in the atmosphere, trapping heat, and warming the earth. That these gases trap heat is basic physics. It is why Venus is hotter than Mercury, though Mercury is closer to the sun. Air bubbles preserved in ancient ice sheets prove we have boosted carbon dioxide concentrations way beyond levels seen in the last 800,000 years. This has altered the earth’s energy balance, as documented by air and ocean temperature changes, reduction in ice mass, and increase in sea levels.

    If Mr. Stephens can propose an alternate explanation for the documented physical changes on the planet, he should do that instead of making believe that the laws of physics have suddenly been suspended. The two issues he focuses on, arctic ice melt and the instrumental temperature record, document that the earth is changing as predicted by scientists decades ago.

    Arctic ice cover has declined dramatically since the 1970s, with a precipitous drop in 2007. While wind patterns can move ice out of the arctic at different rates, global warming continues to melt arctic ice, a fact stated by the Japanese scientist (Masayo Ogi) in the Guardian article to which Mr. Stephens refers. Dr. Ogi’s scientific paper in Geophysical Research Letters concludes “…the combined effect of winter and summer wind forcing…explains roughly 1/3 of the downward linear trend of September Arctic Sea Ice extent over the past 31 years.” (a study published in the same journal in 2008 found a similar result, so this isn’t really news scientifically, just the scientific method in action where independent studies confirm hypotheses). Arctic researchers are sure the other 2/3 of the loss is being driven by climate change, and Mr. Stephens has not provided an alternate explanation.

    More importantly than areal extent, the total ice volume in the arctic has declined precipitously. Ice volume is a measure that scientists consider more important than areal extent because it is becoming clear that thin “rotten” sea ice cannot be reliably differentiated from thicker ice by satellites sensors to estimate overall sea ice extent. Of course, why spend time learning and thinking about the issue when you can imply conspiracy theories about the media previously ignoring these “kinds of stories?”

    Similarly, there is no “story” in the long-debunked claims contained in Der Spiegel about “curious inconsistencies” in the temperature record and “sundry other sins of modern climatology.” There are five independent data sets for global mean air temperature (NASA, NOAA, Hadley GRU, Remote Sensing Systems, and the University of Alabama-Huntsville [the latter two are satellite datasets]), and they all show global mean temperature climbing over the last several decades. The pattern of temperature rise shows amplification of the effect in the arctic, just as predicted decades ago by scientists based upon the physics of radiation and albedo. If Mr. Stephens or the Wall Street Journal are actually interested in a scientific assessment of all the errors or misstatements by Der Spiegel by a practicing climate scientist, you can find it here ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/). Of course, the fact that Mr. Stephens found the Der Spiegel article “delicious” makes it clear he has no interest in understanding climate science, but only in disinformation that helps him create his bubble of ignorance.

    Finally, it is no surprise that Gallup reports that public concern in America for global warming is declining. This is the expected result when trusted sources of public information such as the Wall Street Journal allow biased and uninformed articles such as “What’s the Next Global Warming” to be published.

  14. Russ H says:

    All together now, let’s discount the viscount!

  15. Jeffrey Davis says:

    Apt that he concludes with The Never Ending Story.

  16. Neven says:

    Excellent video, but Peter Sinclair missed the funniest thing about the Pinker paper- Monckton didn’t even know Pinker is a woman.

    Yes, Peter Sinclair should have made mention of this, but it’s a minor point of criticism, about the only one I have actually. Part 2 was even better than part 1.

  17. Robert says:

    Every minute of these videos was a delight, but for me the most striking discovery was Margaret Thatcher’s direct and eloquent call for action:

    “No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy-with full repairing lease.”

    It led me to some of her speeches, which reflect a much clearer understanding of the real dangers of global warming than is typical, even for those who support strong action:

    “The real dangers arise because climate change is combined with other problems of our age: for instance the population explosion; — the deterioration of soil fertility; — increasing pollution of the sea; — intensive use of fossil fuel; — and destruction of the world’s forests, particularly those in the tropics.”

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237

    Droughts and rising sea levels are major concerns, of course, but to see into the heart of the matter, listen to the icon of conservatism: we need food, shelter and fuel for 7 billion and soon 9 billion people. All of this depends on ecological food webs which are stressed further and further by climate change, overpopulation, deforestation and soil degradation. They can collapse.

    But Margaret Thatcher of all people to have perfectly expressed my thought for me! It’s a funny little world.

  18. PurpleOzone says:

    Monckton presents the “stuff” well. He sounds almost like a real scientist. He picks on obscure phenomena that most people have never heard, like me. For instance the carbonate rocks proving there was more CO2 when the world was covered with ice — who’d figure out on the fly that was eons ago when the sun was dimmer? Then he quotes the data with seeming authority and draws his erroneous conclusions. He has presented something that sticks in the mind and sounds scientific. I can see why it’s worth paying him to jaunt around the world to present stuff dissing global warming.

    Who supplies him with the data he quotes? I don’t believe for a moment he researches that himself.

    It’s easy to make fun of him or quote his looney ideas. Don’t overlook — he’s good at what he does.

    Sinclair does a fine job dissecting the crocks in a way that sticks in your mind.

    The important thing about our climate today is that it is a balance — or was — and we are used to it! It really doesn’t matter what the climate once was — we’ll do best with the one we have.