A new video from Peter Hadley to debunk the usual naysayers who think this temporary slowdown or pause in AGW is the destruction of all science.
NASA’s new climate satellite explained in detail
While Lord Monckton might be good at devising Sudoku puzzles, you sure don’t want to seek his advice on anything to do with either science or politics since he’s demonstrably a consummate and nearly pathological liar when it comes to those two arenas.
He’s hopped on the climate denialist bandwagon, and there are many examples of untruths, hyperbole, and amazing claims in his body of statements on climate science, and he even managed to sucker me before I knew much about him [back here — one of those posts I really regret having created, followup is embedded in an update in the original post and here.]
Another bizarre example – he claims to be a member of the House of Lords, even though the House of Lords has stated that:
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
Indeed, the only time Fraud Monckton ran for house of Lords he received zero votes.
Peter Sinclair at Climate Denial Crock of the Week has a two part series debunking the Snake Oil that Fraud Monckton is pimping, if you haven’t seen Part one, stop by LGF , and here is part II:
Peter Sinclair covers several of the recent climate denialist headlines, which almost always get things exactly wrong or backwards.
Very important talk here, pretty much what I’ve been saying when I’ve taken the time to bash Gore and his anti-nuclear crowd in We.
It’s crucial that we create plentiful cheap energy – it’s also crucial that it be carbon free and safe. Bill thinks he knows a way.
Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Were Known About in the Late 50’s
In his latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week Peter Sinclair points out that we’ve known about the effects of CO2 and the Greenhouse effect since the 1950’s. The debate has never really been over whether CO2 can effect the world’s temperature, it’s always been about figuring out how much and how soon. I’ve known about this since the 80’s, and it was one of the factors that convinced me to become an advocate for nuclear energy – I was reading debates by some of my favorite authors about the various dooms posed by the Club of Rome and others, and nuclear energy seemed to address most if not all of those best. It was clean, and it could be cheap – with nuclear we could beat four of the horsemen: hunger, water shortages, global warming, and population.
During the past three years I’ve considered that the others were more important, and still do to this day. I published quite a few articles posing challenges to some of the more alarmist of the global warming claims thinking we had plenty of time to get there and that other matters were more important. That focus has changed, since the data keeps stacking up and getting more alarming, it’s time we start addressing global warming because waiting until the second half of the century will be too late. Something I had thought we could procrastinate on has come due.
I still do not think cap and trade and the other schemes are sufficient, and I don’t like them because they are coercive. Those type of plans usually fail. Instead I prefer that our country become the prime provider of clean, cheap, nuclear energy for a needy world — besides that clean energy is a bull market and blue sky – we need to stay ahead of that market for the future prosperity of our nation. Instead of billions in money flowing to other countries in a mad shell game we should instead just help build reactors. You can see some of the other factors that we need to consider and why nuclear is so important if we are to keep it real in this article where I roundly slam Al Gore.
UPDATE: Here’s one of the early modern articles from 1956 on CO2 and its effects, it wasn’t the slightest bit controversial when it appeared.
Monckton Fabricates Data
Following up on an earlier post on Lord Monckton’s anti-AGW campaign it turns out that he’s playing fast and loose with data, and apparently making things up. The sordid details can be found at RealClimate. What’s his defense going to be? That he was only trying to make the chart look good?