Monckton interviews a warmist

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Sunday, December 13. 2009

Monckton interviews a warmist

h/t, Insty. How do you discuss things with somebody like that?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 09:48 | Comments (14) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

An insightful interview at Copenhagen
Lord Monkton talks with a Greenpeace spokeswoman and has a delightful ten minute give and take interview. For this person, it was a matter of faith and not of science. Hat tip Maggie's who got it from the puppy blender....

Weblog: Synthstuff - music, photography and more...
Tracked: Dec 13, 15:57

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Barrister,

I'd have to say that was the best interview I've seen, in a long time, on any topic. And I was impressed with her poise and apparent character. Monckton, of course, is superb! I've seen him in previous interviews.

I would like to see more of Christopher Monckton, in the public forum. This would help to resolve this farce (i.e. AGW).

"A Matter of Faith or a Matter of Science"? That truly renders the issue to the marrow.

I, like most, must rely on my faith in my resourses, to believe that AGW (as both the political and environmental issue that has been created) is truly a farce. I believe it's not about climate but about politics and an attempt at the greatest transfer of wealth in recorded history. But, I'm slightly off topic.

Monckton is masterful, as he moves in, supported by facts (provided they are correct) to reach a logical and valid position. The way he tells the woman that she doesn't have a clue (re the facts) and, yet, has established herself on a false path, led by the likes of Greenpaece, et al., is both tactical yet, gentle. Well done. I was also very impressed with the manner with which she handled herself.

As mentioned, I must do my own research, which is both time consuming and, I dare say, well out of my range of knowledge, and come to a conclusion (at least a position) that feels "right" with me and proceed accordingly. I can only read what I can, rely on the various "outlets of truth" (like Maggie's and SDA) of my choosing and believe (hope) that I'm on the home team. I know I am and yet, I guess, there's always that small chance.

Faith. Belief. Truth. This triad forms the foundation of society and the life we know. The search for proof is moot as they aren't "things" but states of mind/heart/soul and quite elusive, at times.

Only if we continue the search will we continue to have hope...real hope. Keep it up!

Cheers.

#1 Garry on 2009-12-13 11:16 (Reply)

Actually, this very smart woman has made her decisions the way that most of us do. How do we make decisions outside of our own areas of expertise? We rely heavily on "experts."

The Hadley CRU people are experts. The MSM and most politicians tell us the CRU analysis is correct. Why would someone with a limited scientific background or knowledge of statistical analysis disagree? Shouldn't all people of goodwill want to save polar bears?

Science, politics and religion (if only the religion of environmentalism) have been all wrapped up together, with predictable results.

#2 Mystery Meat (Link) on 2009-12-13 11:45 (Reply)

The MSM and most politicians tell us the CRU analysis is correct.

And at one time scientific consensus, major newspapers and politicians refused to fund Robert Goddard's research into rockets because as we all know, there is nothing to push against in a vacuum - Newtonian physics be damned - stands to reason you have to push against something to make it move.

How'd that work out for them?

I've said this before and I'll keep on saying it - the simple truth is that in the history of science there is consensus and then there are mavericks who say "Hey - wait minute - that ain't necessarily so".

What we're experiencing now is one of the moments.

#2.1 Tom Francis on 2009-12-13 13:52 (Reply)

Well, I don't know, Mystery Meat, but if you don't have expertise in certain important areas, you could research the areas before you jump to possibly faulty conclusions. And when folks start laying down the law as being 'absolutely positive' about something that will cost trillions of bucks, you could ask "who benefits" if we do this.

That's just common sense.

Marianne

#3 Marianne Matthews on 2009-12-13 13:38 (Reply)

Marianne, I have always been a skeptic about AGW, but finding out that the data that supports the skeptics viewpoint comes from Illinois worries this Old Gray Badger.

#3.1 SCOTTtheBADGER on 2009-12-14 06:02 (Reply)

I believe most people are honest, but people are misled everyday. I agree that this nice lady believes her organization and takes their word as the truth! It seems to me that many have taken this as "faith", science isn't faith, science isn't consensus, science is the gained knowledge of many very intelligent people working to acquire this information to their very best ability!

I'm stunned at the level of dishonesty by organizations to further their agendas, where is the honesty, and integrity in everyday life when people deliberately mislead another? What have we become in a society where moral guidelines are twisted, where the truth is seldom heard, where people turn their backs on what is just and right?

This is herd mentallity where as individuals we are afraid of becoming alienated by the herd or left behind if we dare to be different, dare to ask questions, believe without any moral values? I truly believe David Horowitz when he says this is the new socialism, the new religion of the Left, another attempt to have government control our every breathing moment! We are in troubling times, when elected officials, and media representatives fail to preform their chosen or elected positions!

#4 Pat on 2009-12-13 14:47 (Reply)

I don't think you need to go further than high-school physics to dispute global warming...Heat transfer experiments like calculating the temperature change that comes from melting an ice cube in a cup of water is the key in my mind...Our atmosphere is the thinnest of veils that surrounds the earth. And, CO2 makes up just three hundreths of a percent of the atmosphere...The energy transfer from heat absorbing gases like CO2 would have to be significant enough to change the existing quadrillions of tons of mass of the earth which is impacted by the Sun's radiant energy and stabilized further by the oceans...To me, the thought is ridiculous...Maybe I'm wrong and I know the systems involved are infinitely complex...But...

#5 Scott on 2009-12-13 14:49 (Reply)

Well... Monkston has chosen himself a rather disadvantged opponent from the get go... hasn't he.

But if'n herdin' ewe's is a rage, more power to ya, Monck.

#6 Leag on 2009-12-13 16:27 (Reply)

Well the "higher ups" think the science is settled so they won't even talk about it; limits the interview possibilities.

#6.1 Deb on 2009-12-13 22:17 (Reply)

Mystery Meat expressed much of my feelings earlier and better than I could.

We have to rely on others to know specifics, it is quite impossible for anyone to know everything. For example, I barely know that there is a difference between concrete and cement, so putting in a walkway or building foundation I have to rely on others. At best, we can cast about for a second opinion.

And, sometimes that second [differing] opinion is not easy to find, certainly not when we put our reliance on opinion-mongerers like PETA and Greenpeace with acknowledged agendas and biases, or the "news" business with its bias to reporting drama over content.

#7 John A on 2009-12-13 16:47 (Reply)

Um ... John A ... concrete is generally made from cement, a binder, and types of sand or gravel. Not hard to find out, actually. You could check it out on Google. Took me about a minute to check out.

Marianne

P.S. I would never depend on PETA and Greenpeace for basic information, precisely because they are advocacy groups and they do have biases.

#8 Marianne Matthews on 2009-12-13 16:55 (Reply)

When the muckity mucks at the University of Illinois find out that someone on their payroll is producing data that disputes the notion that the polar icecaps are melting, someone is going to lose their job. That school has assumed that the only reason it exists is to bring in grants and donations to fund often pointless research projects and right now the money is on the global warming (oops, I mean climate change) bandwagon.
Now excuse me while I go throw some more wood on the fireplace.

#9 Dirk on 2009-12-13 21:28 (Reply)

Well Dirk, hopefully when the administrators get around to checking the data for themselves they will find that their researchers have refrained from remarking on the obvious and simply let the data speak for themselves.

BTW, Mystery Meat and John sound like the kind of folks that absolutely accept authoritative sources such as the Chinese Communist Party or the KKK just so long as it has a government imprimatur. Fact checking? Well let's consult with the paper of record to see what the NYT has to say about widespread deliberate starvation in Ukraine under Stalin....Nope, never happened. Move along, nothing to see here. Most excellent tools.

#10 Curtis on 2009-12-14 00:05 (Reply)

"Well, I don't know, Mystery Meat, but if you don't have expertise in certain important areas, you could research the areas before you jump to possibly faulty conclusions. And when folks start laying down the law as being 'absolutely positive' about something that will cost trillions of bucks, you could ask "who benefits" if we do this. That's just common sense."

"BTW, Mystery Meat and John sound like the kind of folks that absolutely accept authoritative sources such as the Chinese Communist Party or the KKK just so long as it has a government imprimatur."

Geez- tough crowd. Now I'm a mindless automaton (like a Chicom or KKK member!) who can't think for himself. Sheesh!

I am, and have been an anthropogenic climate change skeptic forever. All I was trying to do (poorly, apparently) is say that AGW in the public sphere has been jammed down the throats of the public by the media, by "experts," by the schools, and by the government, authoritative figures all, in the effort to make acceptance of AGW the conventional wisdom in people's minds. Their effort has largely succeeded up to the Hadley CRU meltdown. I am perfectly aware that proof by "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. When I hear a smart person (like the lady Lord Monckton interviewed) saying what she said, I am not surprised.

#10.1 Mystery Meat on 2009-12-14 13:41 (Reply)

The IPCC (I_tentionally P_ropagandized C_limate C_onspiracy) depends on Mr. Jones.

***

Stranger on the street (wearing lab coat and stethoscope): "Excuse me, Jones, but, to be fair to the handicapped, I need to amputate your arm."

Jones: "Okay, fine with me, you're the Doc!"
`

#11 buddy larsen on 2009-12-14 05:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, December 13. 2009

Monckton interviews a warmist