General discussion


Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, I like you!

By maxwell edison ·

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The case for human caused

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Levels of Confusion

global warming has not been proven. I think it will be, and being a pragmatist, I think it's better to take it as though it has already.

It's in my interest in my opinion anyway.

I like self interest, altruists are bloody annoying.

Collapse -

Self interest

by jfp3 In reply to The case for human caused

Self interest can come in two forms: short term (profit) and long term (prosperity).

Personally, I like to take the long view. When looked at over the longest time scales we have available, it appears that there have been cycles of warming and cooling. In past cycles human activity has not been a factor. However when looking at ice cores, from Greenland and Antarctica, it is possible to get a glimpse of atmospheric conditions during those cycles. In my view, human activity does seem to be accelerating the cycle. (There...I'm actually stating my opinion.)

Given that it is impossible to prove a negative, if we act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if in fact the current trends reverse or stabilize over time, this is in no way proof that doing nothing to limit emissions would have had no effect, or a calamitous effect.

Conversely, if we do nothing to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and trends continue, or accelerate, this result is in no way proof that doing something to limit them would have had any effect either.

In real world terms, though, in terms of short term profit vs. long term prosperity, there is little to be lost by acting as though reducing emissions will have the desired effect. New industries will be born, both in energy production and emission control, spawning new technologies creating new sources of wealth. It may be true that wealth my shift, but that is the nature of markets.

If we do nothing, the long term view would indicate that investment in inland real-estate would be a wise move, if ocean levels to rise. People need to live somewhere, after all...

Collapse -

Even more profound and the best way I've seen it put ...

by drowningnotwaving In reply to The underlying issue...

...the ability to spend money is automatically equated with free speech. When this happens, those with the most money can speak longer and louder than those with no money. In a pure capitalist, that would be a normal and logical outcome.

... many people tend to conflate capitalism with democracy, believing that there is some form of equivelence.

In many cases, the last thing a capitalist wants is a free, educated market with the ability to question, either economically or democratically, decisions they make.

They wonder why their decision should be up to any scrutiny at all.

Collapse -

The Lord - not what he's cracked up to be?

by Oz_Media In reply to That's three times this y ...

Watch outr fo rthe Lord. Whilst his ancestors have a long list of rather impressive accomplishments under thier belts, Christopher Monckton merely stepped into the 'Lord's' shoes by default and is a journalist known for VERY controversial reporting.

In this case I like his comments but many have challenged his comments and corrected his ways of determining the 'facts' he proposes. In a nutshell, it's just another journalists opinion, not a scientists though.

Again, while I like what he says here, he is nothing more than a journalist for several very controversial sources.

Collapse -

Gentlemen - Scientists at 20 paces

by drowningnotwaving In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...,,1947248,00.html

My suggestion? Beer. Lots of it. Often.

Max perhaps you are right. Perhaps there is nothing we can do. Certainly listening to the scientists will only serve to screw us around.

What's the saying about a man with one watch? Does it work to change the analogy to one scientist?

Whereas a man with one beer is just lucky. A man with two beers is absolutely guaranteed to be doubly lucky. Beer works.

Collapse -

Global warming is such a complex issue, as it involves

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...

the entire climate, planet, and beyond - the Moon and Sun affect weather too.

One of the most interesting aspects of the people pushing the 'Global Warming is a Imminent Disaster' line, is they have these lovely models that show exactly what's going to happen in 10 or 20 or 50 years, but the models fail dismally when asked to project for the next year or two. Why?

Simple, they're simple and do NOT include all the relevant factors, just a few major ones that their designers think are important. Thus critical aspects are left out.

When the experts run the models that we currently use for fairly (note fairly) accurate short range weather forecasts to model long term, the systems die claiming insufficient data.

The planet is warming, no one disputes that, the evidence is that it's been doing it for many thousands of years (gee, I didn't know man had been using fossil fuels that long, oh well). We have old records going back several hundred years (mostly maritime logs) that show the planet has been warmer than it is now, and also colder.

When the scientist can develop a model that is accurate for in a year and 10 years and 20 years, then we can start talking about what's likely to happen.


The best climatologists confirm temperature changes, note that much of that is natural, and debunk the claims they're due to man's influence only. There is a difference between the studies of climatology and environmentalism. The environmentalists tends to over simplify the climate factors and scream doom, while the climatologists tend to over simplify the environmental factors. we need good models that include all factors, and work well.


Another interesting aspect is that the scientists claim, and have proven reasonably well, that we can't create matter or energy, just convert it. So burning fossil fuels puts carbon atoms in the air, that had been in the air before and stored as plants, coal etc. gee isn't that completing the cycle and returning them to where they belong .

OK joking aside, man has an impact on the environment - both good and bad - as does every living thing. Animals produce methane, plants produce oxygen, etc.

In the last few thousand years man has affected the environment in that some areas of forest no longer exist, neither do the forest and range fires they used to have on a regular basis. We complain about bush fires etc, but they are nothing compared to some past fires before man started fighting them and stopping them, or restricting their size through human developments.

Sure we should be taking reasonable steps to limit any appearantly adverse effect, and to repair any we know of. But that does not mean we should financially disadvantage any socio economic group because they haven't yet done the damage others have.

What is interesting is that all those supporting GW danger in the political sphere all have an axe to grind that will leave them financially better off. Many of the international agreements are also set up in such a way as to benefit those that have already done the near maximum damage to their environment.


We need an environmental agreement that takes, as a base line, the natural environment of each geopolitical region as it would be if there had been no interaction with man. Develop figures as to the amount of oxygen and green house gas emissions for that area. Then compare that with what they currently have in both oxygen and greenhouse gas production. From that we can then determine their effect on the environment.

Want to go about comparing greenhouse gases levels of geopolitical areas, compare them with and without the humans in each area, not the changes since industrial development has started, or in recent times.

edited to fix typo

Collapse -

I'll just answer one of your points

by neilb@uk In reply to Global warming is such a ...

as its an easy one and then you can go back and wonder what else is so wrong. You put a smiley on it so you must think it's a good point. It's not.

"Another interesting aspect is that the scientists claim, and have proven reasonably well, that we can't create matter or energy, just convert it. So burning fossil fuels puts carbon atoms in the air, that had been in the air before and stored as plants, coal etc. gee isn't that completing the cycle and returning them to where they belong ."

Carbon gets locked in coal and oil I agree. So the coal and oil contains carbon extracted from the atmospher hundreds of millions of years ago. Under normal circumstances that carbon would remain where it is!

We, humans, are extracting it and converting it to CO2 on a scale that no natural process could do it. Left alone, coal is just another rock.

Burning wood and biofuels are fine just so long as you plant it again. THAT is a cycle.

As a side issue, it's interesting to note that the amount of CO2 produced by human activity simply by manufacturing cement, which frees the CO2 from limestone, outstrips the average CO2 production by all of the Earth's volcanoes even if you discount the fuel used in manufacture.

Neil :)

Collapse -

Sorry mate, none of the default smileys are labeled

by Deadly Ernest In reply to I'll just answer one of y ...

sarcastic tongue in cheek. I was been extremely sarcastic about the recycle routine of putting things back where they started from. Maybe I should have used sarcasm tags.

The big point is that the co2 had been there before, came out and is now going back. It is also coming out again.

However, my main argument is that no one has enough data to say, without any shadow of a doubt, what is causing any changes. We know that much of the earth's climates are on looong cyclic patterns, some measured in years, decades, centuries and thousands of years. It's possible to say that such and such is having an effect, but not exactly what sort of effect, and totally impossible to say it is the main or significant effect.

Anyway, lets promote the use of biofuels, it'll also help the agri markets.

Collapse -

I agreed with him until...

by Benevolence In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...

Lord Monckton is spot on (about open criticism)... but then spoils his statement by making it clear where he stands on the political issue. He should have just left it as making a point about not silencing critics!

"I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences." - Lord Monckton

He should have been stronger... the point would have been more impressive.

Collapse -

Deniers (tangent)

by onbliss In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...

This is a tangent to the thread. I couldn't help notice the mention of "deniers" and the recent charging and releasing of British historian - David Irving. Is it just Austria or do other countries also arrest such deniers?

Related Discussions

Related Forums