Are Al Gore and the UN right about global warming being a planetary emergency? NO! says Christopher Monckton in a 2007 presentation delivered at Cambridge University. Watch Lord Monckton place climate science into largely layman terms, exposing climate scare after climate scare. “Scientifically masterful, brilliantly composed, and emotionally moving,” says Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford. DVD available in NTSC (US & Canada) and PAL (Europe and Asia).
Apocalypse? NO! Why ‘global warming’ is not a global crisis
Order from the demandDEBATE Store
I’ve asked for a review copy, so I’ll post up my verdict in due course.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well if Laurence says so I’m convinced.
But for free you can watch Naomi Oreskes on the American Denial of Global Warming. What to do with yourself if you’re through with tobacco shilling.
Sorry – too busy posting papers that don’t exist according to ‘science historian’ Oreskes.
Err what papers are they – you mean misc op eds, Morano lists, and open ended – pieces like on coral.
Still though the level of shonkery exposed by Oreskes has to seen and heard to be believed. I don’t know why you’d even give these guys the time of day given the history.
Shouldn’t it be “Oh, Lord! Monckton?”
The papers I post are peer reviewed and generally don’t support climate alarmism. Pretty much everything is ‘open ended’ but is often presented as being ‘closed.’
If the Oreskes Science paper had been peer reviewed, the referees would have noticed ‘climate change’ was the wrong search term – should have been ‘global climate change’ – hence the later correction.
Oreskes should have the intelligence to realise that consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.
As for Christopher Monckton, I’m on email discussion lists that include him – I’m impressed by his knowledge, which can be contrasted with Gore’s total lack of understanding of climate – which is why Gore won’t face Monckton in a debate.
Well Paul – that’s the whole trick that Orsekes has exposed showing the tobacco and star wars shills – make the uncertainty more than it seems. Don’t try to win – just go for the gerneration of uncertainty. And Paul very few people actually read the papers and the comments received on those papers – sometimes the conclusions are far from what is presented or much less certain. Sometimes the papers are even flawed or awaiting further confirmation. Which is why you do an IPCC style meta-review instead of a scatter gun cherry picker.
Oreskes is just another CO2 politician. I have no interest in tobacco or star wars. I think you know what I think of the IPCC ‘review’ and waht really lies behind it.
Well if you like getting your advice from shonks – cool then. Paul stop your whinging and do some medical research for a change.
Luke, how can one tell the difference between (a) continued debate on uncertainty on a subject about which all meaningful uncertainty has been removed by evidence and (b) continued debate on uncertainty on a subject about which there still remains significant uncertainty?
In case (a) I would expect those in the know to be able to answer the questions of skeptics with incontrovertible experimental and theoretical evidence. Alas, this isn’t happening. Of course, your approach of calling people shills is also a very good one.
You’re very hopeful if you ever think you’d get “incontrovertible experimental and theoretical evidence” on a scientific subject like the Earth’s climate. There is significant daily, annual, inter-annual and decadal variability built in already. The climate has changed in the past for a variety of reasons. So the problem is seeing a signal in the noise, and at what point that signal becomes obvious as dogs balls.
So this is not a simple science problem.
As for who you get your advice from – well I think their past activities are a very good indication to their clarity of thought.
Orsekes has demonstrated in her presentation that the tactic of her studied “sceptics” was to create the impression of great uncertainty where there is considerable certainty. They had done it before on other issues.
Your problem is to work out whether they’re justified in that approach or are simply indulging in politically motivated propaganda. The sceptics would say in reverse the same is true of the IPCC process.
Good science should not care about the popularity of the truth – the truth is simply what it is. Palatable or unpalatable to our senses.
So that didn’t help one bit did it?
Al Gore, famous for educating the world about the dangers of global warming and climate change, will be arriving in Israel this May after winning one of Israel’s most prestigious prizes, the Dan David Prize, valued at $1 million. The prize is part of $3 million in award money offered annually by the Dan David Foundation, a philanthropic organization housed at Tel Aviv University and endowed by Israeli businessman Dan David. The foundation’s mission is to award cash prizes that will impact the fields of human knowledge and foster the next generation of scholars. “The 2008 Dan David Prize honors Al Gore for establishing climate crisis as a moral and spiritual imperative, thereby helping to galvanize international action against global warming,” said the prize jury…..
Founded in 2001, the Dan David Prize regularly acknowledges US achievements in science and the arts. Past American prizewinners include cellist Yo-Yo Ma and scientist James Hanson.
Along with Al, Lonnie Thompson will be showing up to collect his loot. A cool million for scamming the world. http://www.dandavidprize.org/
It is what it is.
Adventures in the Medieval Warm Period
Todays example http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/198
World Heritage Site 198 – The Cahokia Mounds of central Illinois.
Cahokia Mounds, some 13 km north-east of St Louis, Missouri, is the largest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico. It was occupied primarily during the Mississippian period (800–1400), when it covered nearly 1,600 ha and included some 120 mounds. It is a striking example of a complex chiefdom society, with many satellite mound centres and numerous outlying hamlets and villages. This agricultural society may have had a population of 10–20,000 at its peak between 1050 and 1150. Primary features at the site include Monks Mound, the largest prehistoric earthwork in the Americas, covering over 5 ha and standing 30 m high.
It is what it is.
Gentlemen – I enjoyed reading your knowledgeable comments – but gotta admit I’m a disbeliever. I reckon all this is ‘the sky falling in sort of stuff ‘. All I can add is – if Al’s got a $1m at his disposal I wonder if he’d be interested in buying the Sydney Harbor Bridge ?