MN professor eviscerates Lord Monckton's climate disinformation in must-see video

Actually, even Abraham admits at the end of his presentation that it takes a lot of time to dissect something like Monckton's speech, so why do you expect me to spend hours dissecting Abraham's presentation? If I could be bothered I would, there are a few things which instantly spring to mind that Abraham needs to answer himself, and it is quite easy to present something like this when there's no opposing voice to balance the discussion.

I like your reference to Gore, by the way, "being proved wrong and a liar; making up data; and blantantly giving disinformation on polar bears, glacier melt, acidification, and sea level rise." At least I think that's Gore you're referring to, I mean, these are all the things he's been found guilty of.

"So, the leaders of Kiribati have every reason to shriek about the destruction of their islands because of anthropogenic global warming since this puts the moral and financial onus on the developed nations which the Kiribatians would like to milk. Once again, this is shown to be an issue largely about the redistribution of wealth."

http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=759

Yep, it's all about MONEY to aristocratic, arrogant, nose in the air elitists. LET THEM DROWN, right? Long as I got mine. Again, you make me sick.

Why does everything have to remain exactly as it is now?
You mention "barring any other variables" but the world is not like that. You cannot take things in isolation. As you've already learned (although you spun that one out to be a disaster) is that land rises and sinks, just as sea levels do. Bangladesh is a river delta, it is constantly changing, it won't be the same in a hundred years time no matter what happens.

To state that "many who live in lowlying areas cannot surive a 5 ft increase in their sea level" is just using emotive language to prop up a weak argument.
What you mean is those people living in low lying areas will eventually have to move to higher ground, but they've got a few decades in which to do it, and that is providing sea levels continue to rise at the present rate.

The Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services say Bangladesh is increasing by 12.5 square miles annually. Maybe some of those people who are facing losing the land they live on will easily find somewhere else to live.

Ever been to Doggaland? No, me neither, mainly because it's under a few hundred feet of water. People used to live in that area between the UK and Denmark until the ice melted and swamped the landscape 8000 years ago. Things change, and you can't put it all down to man burning coal.
Bangladesh will continue to change too, and there's not much you can do to stop it happening. People should be looking to live with the effects of the natural changes the earth presents to us, not sitting behind computers wailing about how terrible this all is, because it isn't.

"not sitting behind computers wailing about how terrible this all is,"

Yes, I know the information given here is chapping your fossil fuel loving a** and you wish it would go away. GOOD. You just give it more credence with every response to my entries. Please keep it going.

Also the electric companies lie to every one. In the video, that man runs three fans, lights and a TV all off that small solar panel. I have two larger panels and get by just fine. The utility companies will tell you that you need 15 panels, something very few can afford. It's not true. Start with efficiency, a DC, propane (or natural gas?) refrigerator. Eliminate your dryer. Heat with wood. I have plenty of electricity, especially when the neighbors are not stealing it.

From your link story:
"Of all of the effects of climate change, sea level rise may pose the most pervasive challenge for Bangladesh.
After being fairly stable for a couple of thousand years, sea levels have crept up about 20 centimetres since the mid-1800s. For the coming century, the 2007 IPCC report talks about sea level rise in centimetres — to be precise, 18 to 59 centimetres. "

IPCC predictions again, look at the wording!. And yet if you care to look at actual figures supplied by NOAA you'll find that at Vishakhapatnam, India, which is the nearest station to Bangladesh, sea level is rising at 0.54mm/yr which is which is equivalent to 0.18 feet in 100 years. Scary eh?

It's scary if you are already living on lowlying land with other variables globally such as erratic rainfall patterns, storms, glacier melt, etc, that can tip the scales faster. But then why should you allow that to skew your view about dismissing this? It doesn't take much in the way of salinity to ruin the agriculture and livelihoods of lowlying land that can then lead to famine. This isn't JUST about the sea level rise but the repercusions of it. Even if the land is not submerged in total, if there is no way to make a living or live on it that is just as bad. As one of the people in that video also stated it is their HOMELAND and there is then also a spiritual connection to the land, but then do you even care about that? Once again, those variables don't seem to play into your skewed view. And I know full well what NOAA says and will unlike you actually post the source.

"This site lists projections for sea level rise in the 21st Century. "
And we can stop right there. Projections? These projections are always one way, why is that? What projections tend to tell us, quite vividly, is that projections tend to be pretty useless at predicting real life.

"What projections tend to tell us, quite vividly, is that projections tend to be pretty useless at predicting real life"

Funny, you didn't seem to think that when you just hypocritically threw the NOAA stat in my face.

That NOAA "stat" was an actual figure, a real-life figure showing actual sea level change in the real world. It was not a prediction, there is a big difference.

You're playing semantics to cover your ignorance. I posted both because they are both important in understanding the trends that are effecting the planet. Just because they are predictions you don't agree with doesn't make them any less valid. I'm sure when your bug- eyed hero places his made up stats on the screen you are all atwitter... So don't even attempt to demean the information here by trying to dismiss predictions. And of course, you have totally ignored the presentation that was the actual topic of this post. Very telling. And we could sit here all day arguing, but it doesn't change that reality you claim exists but still deny. You have already proven your total lack of understanding of the true repercussions of what is happening regarding climate change and that REAL PEOPLE are now feeling the effects of it. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but thankfully there are many more who understand this and will act on it whether you or your oil soaked proteges like it or not.

Semantics? I post facts from NOAA showing real data that is occurring now and you post links to an article that includes a movie showing the effects of a 492 foot sea level rise...!!!
And "you or your oil soaked proteges" oh my god... what did you smoke for breakfast?

The FIRST link states sea level stats by NOAA. Good lord, you are dense, and obviously pissed someone showed your hero for what he is, a fraud. So now you are following me around on other threads. How immature...

Links links links... all these links you keep posting, I'm getting lost.
Fact is, you posted a link to a page that shows a 482ft sea level rise movie.
Now do you want to talk about realism? With real sea level rises measured in millimtres, how many centuries will it take for the oceans to rise to 482ft above what they are now?
What is the point in showing us that? Were you trying to prove some sort of point? Reality doesn't really factor in your thinking, does it? Predictions and projections matter more to you than real life.
Actually, Monckton is not my 'hero', but at least he stands and talks to people, taking questions and is open to debate. It speaks volumes that Gore won't have an open debate with him.

Yes, it does speak volumes that Mr. Gore, a nobel prize winning author and speaker won't debate him... and it speaks well because even he like this professor can spot a fraud a mile away. But if your Monckton is so itchy for a debate, then let him take on this professor. But of course, we all know he won't, the coward, because this isn't about the information or truth to him, especially since he makes it up as he goes along. No, his WHINING about debating Mr. Gore in order to give his tripe credibility is clearly politically motivated PR BS. I'm glad Mr. Gore has more sense than to fall for his attempts to get his fifteen minutes of fame. He has already been debunked as this presentation soundly shows. I think we can all find a much better use of our time now than entertaining the whims of paid shills.

And you ask, what is the point in showing the video and posting links? HMM, because it is REAL and the TRUTH? So yes, I could see how that would really bother you which is why you keep coming back in here to push this thread up some more. You can't fake that this isn't effecting people when the actual people experiencing it explain it. You really are relentless in your attempts to shil for coal and oil aren't you? Even to the point where you can cavalierlyy say, they can just move. You really have no concept do you? You actually at this point are making me sick.

"You really are relentless in your attempts to shil for coal and oil aren't you?"
Actually no. I know you'd like that to be the case, it would make your life easier (and it's the only thing you can come out with with boring regularity) but in reality I'm more on the side of truth. I just get tired of stupid people spouting stupid scaremongering lies in order to feed their depression or for whatever aim they choose, often socialism.

Tell me what's wrong with saying the people of Bangladesh can move? They'll have to either move or adapt whether the world warms or cools, we all will in different ways. Again, why are you so stupid as to think that the world is a static place?
Greenland is littered with Viking settlements. They moved out when it got cold. Explain why that was such a disastrous thing? Obviously it was warm enough for them to move there in the first place, and then the climate changed and it turned cold. Is it ok that the Vikings were disrupted due to climate change (which of course was natural), but not the people of Bangladesh?

Now onto old man Gore. It's not just about Monckton, you know, Gore hasn't exactly opened himself up to debate with anyone.
In fact just asking a question is enough to scare Gore:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-confronted-on-climategate-in-chicago.html

Maybe Gore shies away from questions because he might be faced with something like this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.th...

Is Gore really as credible as you make out? Not everyone thinks like you:
“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”—Mark Twain.

"Twain’s observation is precisely the issue with the Nobel Peace Prizes given to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
"No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more. Of course, they couldn’t denounce him because they might expose their own corruption. Together they achieved only one success by disproving the adage that there is honor among thieves. "
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18005

His comedy "An Inconvenient Truth" is now seen as a joke even amongst scientists and cannot be shown in British schools without a disclaimer and opposing evidence (and there's plenty of that):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
And the SPPI found no less than 35 errors in what they call, ""Al Gore's discredited climate movie."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/goreerrors.html
The movie is also discredited here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
and here:
http://academic3.american.edu/~rossiter/Convenient%20Fibs.html
and, what's this... Monckton discrediting Gore:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

You drew attention to Monckton and Aids. Monckton has since altered his views on AIDS, stating that "the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work."
Ok, so if it's fair game to attack Monckton for his initial views on AIDS, let's look at Gore's links to AIDS:

"Not only was Gore caught red-handed last year blocking the delivery of cheaper drugs to fight AIDS to South Africa. But he is also on record, particularly in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, advocating radical population reduction—even if it means the spreading of pandemic killer diseases such as AIDS to achieve that reduction."
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/2703aids_gore.html

"A report issued some months ago by the State Department and sent to Congress points out that Vice president Al Gore, who has many times called for urgent measures to slow the AIDS epidemic, has at the same time worked backstage to repeal a law that can help AIDS victims in the poorest countries. This document has outraged consumer activists, AIDS groups and physicians who claim that Gore is putting the interests
of drug corporations before the welfare of HIV victims."
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/11/1261.full.pdf

Well, just a small selection of links for you, (I know you like links).

OOO, now we know why you are here. So transparent. And again you refuse to refute anything this professor stated about Monckton. You are a coward just like he is.

Mother Nature is a relentless one, but that's no excuse to take advantage of her.

"The Planet is going to just re-teraform itself to get rid of us."

I like that idea, that's pretty much how it works. Just like an immune system.

I can't really say I disagree with that looking at what is happening globally. I do believe the Earth has a life force, and that life force is being zapped by us.

My first inclination is that this guy is full of shit, but that's just me.

The Earth's a rock bro.

That went right over my head...Care to elaborate?

Bingo.

Would be fine by me. I think we need to see more environmental reporting on Current. "Green" seems to have been killed as far as being a real part of this site. Without a healthy environment there is nothing else, and those who sacrifice it for their own selfish agendas need to be called on it as it is now irresponsible and dangerous to our future to do so.

Ever try looking up WHY this is happening to you? The data is there if you choose to find it.

You're really over-generalizing. It's like going to start your car and having it not start. By your reasoning it would be a myth that cars start. It wouldn't occur to you that it may simply just be your car that doesn't start.

By the way, it was 88 here in Pittsburgh the other day. In fact it's been in the mid-80's for about a week. I wouldn't say it's "local global warming" though.

Military chemtrails and other interference.

http://www.californiaskywatch.com/

I still have a couple of sections to listen to, but yes, this was ON THE MARK. And really, this should not only be about climate change and CO2 emissions that are exacerbating it, it is also about pollution that is killing our environment and us. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is simply the logical thing to do to protect the climate balance ot this planet as well as for providing for healthier people, food, and biodiversity. Industrial agriculture driven by fossil fuels is killing our soil and creating dead zones in our oceans, and that in turn is doing great damage to the ecosystems that sustain life from it's simplest to most complex form. Anyone who can argue against that is simply nothing more at this point to me but a paid shill or someone who simply refuses to accept reality for political, ideological, or economic reasons... and I am glad to see that finally it is being stood up to and debunked because we need to get beyond this to seriously prepare for what is coming if we continue to spew out emissions and oil spills as we continue to do.

I think I'm worried just as much that people will take "scientists" like Monckton seriously when he's not working from real data.

We should be able to trust our scientists to give the most accurate data possible.

Agreed. That's why they don't like the Al Gores of the world who spread the information they hoped would not get to those who would otherwise be taken in by their disinformation to keep their gravy trains going.

Lord 'exophthalmos' Monckton looks like he has Graves' Disease.

The information is here. Go find it.

Long-term versus Short-term time scales...I believe this was covered in Dr. Abraham's presentation.

Think of it as having a terrible disease: some days are better than others, some days are worse, but the long-term trend is negative.

I'm not wishing terminal illness on you, by the way. It's just an example.

Already calculated that it will take 15,000 years to melt all the ice in Greenland.
Where is all this ice melting to? Why aren't sea level rise rates increasing - they're not.
Jerejeva et al calculated sea level rise in 1804-1813 to be 12mm/yr, now we're looking at figures around 3mm/yr and decreasing. How do you explain that?

List your source.

Permanent service for mean sea level rise here:

http://www.psmsl.org/

http://current.com/shows/upstream/92457773_mn-professor-eviscerates-lord-monckto...

This is from 2006 but says Arctic sea level was down but global sea level was up. They are not sure why they got those readings. (See my next post, the rising land mass probably explains it).
__________________________________________________
Excerpt:
"Taking a global view, ERS-2 still records a sea-level rise.

Its radar altimetry data can be meshed with that gathered by its sister spacecraft ERS-1; Europe's leading Earth-observing platform, Envisat; the US Navy's Geosat Follow-On Mission, GFO; and Nasa's highly accurate Topex-Poseidon and Jason missions.

When this is done, ocean waters are shown to have gone up across the planet by 3.2mm per year for the period 1992 to the present." (2006)

My comments are all out of sequence. Look at my previous posts before reading this and it will make more sense.

http://current.com/news/92440653_greenland-rising-rapidly-as-ice-melts.htm

This newer data (newer than 2003) shows Greenland rising. Because they are taking pictures comparing land mass to sea level, when the arctic rises out of the sea, it would skew the data to make it look like sea level was falling. That may be the problem with the above mentioned data. They just didn't know what was happening at the time.
Once again, this article is from 2006 but the arctic info is from 1995 to 2003.
______________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
Excerpt:

The European Space Agency's (Esa) ERS-2 satellite has been making observations of the Earth from its 800km-high polar orbit for over 10 years.

Its Radar Altimeter is constantly throwing down pulses of microwave energy at the land and sea. The time taken for these pulses to bounce back gives a measure of surface height.

Determining elevation trends in a large, moving mass such as an ocean is far from straightforward, however. This is especially so in the Arctic where large areas are covered with pack ice for significant periods of the year.

The satellite data, therefore, has to undergo intensive processing to produce meaningful results.

Only that data gathered over open ocean or water surfaces between cracks in the ice can be used - obviously. The data is also corrected to take account of ocean tides, wave heights, air pressure, and atmospheric effects that might bias the signal.

Working through all these sorts of issues, Dr Scharroo and colleagues have now established seasonal and yearly sea-level trends in the Arctic (from 60 to 82 degrees latitude) for the period 1995 to 2003. The analysis reveals an average 2.17mm fall per annum.

It is a unique analysis for the Arctic. No comparable satellite dataset for the region exists, said Dr Scharroo

"When you get a result like this you always worry that your processing of the data may have introduced signals that are not real. But we can't find anything that we've done wrong, so that makes us think we have stumbled across something real - and we hope that will excite our colleagues," he added.
_________________________________________
So the rising land mass may have skewed the data.

_____

Sea levels rise and fall constantly, and there is a wide variation between different areas of the world.
There are many reasons for the discrepancy between measurements; the method used to measure the sea level, atmospheric pressure, salinity, tectonic activity, post-glacial rebound, but what's interesting is we're still measuring sea level changes in millimetres per year and, compared to sea level changes in the past, what we're witnessing now can only be described as small.

Sources? Anything?

Actually, if you care to look you'll find a lot of what I said contained within the links Futuregen provided.

How many references are there to models in this article?
Real-world evidence proves that models have a very poor record at forecasting anything.

List your source.

Here we go again. Glacial rebound is going on in many places as the earth recovers from an ice age. The earth is not static, land rises and falls constantly. This is not proof of man-made global warming.

List your source.

The Ministry of Silly Walks. That was great:)

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Really? Described by whom? Link or source?

And what videos? If you mean the above then cite the professor's errors and refute his information instead of concentrating on the site the link was on to divert from having to face it. That is, if you can for all of your bloated talk. But actually, I think like most in your camp when faced with real information to refute, you will run.

Getting your pals to vote your substanceless comment up while you ignore my comment to refute the informaiton doesn't prove a thing... except that you can't do it.

this video has very little substance? are you kidding me?

I think your anti-climate change buddies would get their points across better if they at least acted like scientists and used something like references. Then again, it seems to be a consistant trend among deniers to take things at face value. You guys can't spread propaganda if you have to be bothered with all those pesky book-learnin's. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you didn't even bother to view Dr. Abraham's presentation. That 70 minute timestamp was about 69 minutes past where your science-ADD kicks in.

You can take solace in the fact that the news networks won't eat up this rebuttal like they did Monckton's bullshit story. Maybe Abraham should have used some of those pretty colors that Monckton used.

"Anti-climate change"? What, you mean we're against it, or we fight it, much like an antibiotic? Strange term to use.

I don't have any friends here. I only have two followers and one of those is a Greenpeace activist!!!
I know I'm massively outnumbered and will always come off badly, and I'll always come of worse than you. But that doesn't mean you're right or that what you post here is scientifically correct.
Just in case you're interested, I have voted you up on many occasions, maybe from now on I should write comments when I do. But on the occasions when you proffer your 'man-made global warming' nonsense I will always do two things,
1. I will read, listen to or watch whatever you post. I'll always do it with an open mind and think about the content - which is why I don't always jump in immediately with counter-comments.
2. If I disagree with you I'll say so.

I don't have time to trawl through papers (and I tend to have more paper documents than Internet links) to look for scientific evidence to counter your claims. Besides, as has been said before, you can quote any source; a blog, a paper, an IPCC document, a Gore speech, a Wikipedia article, anything, and it's accepted as evidence and concrete proof. If I quote any source that is not verified as being absolutely independent, is not peer reviewed and accepted by at least a handful of IPCC scientists, I'm damned.
I could write a ten page article here using quotes and diagrams from any manner of sources, but what would be the point? With one link to a newspaper scare story you'd flatten me (regarding votes and support), I get ridiculed and made to look a fool.
But none of that means you're correct in the things you write about. You're too simplistic and limited in your outlook towards climate change. The thing is, until the day Al Gore turns around and shouts 'I made it all up' there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do that will ease you away from your belief that man is causing climate change.

You could have your house buried under ten metres of snow and have polar bears crapping in your garden, but all you'd say is 'if it wasn't for global warming things could have been worse'.

Absolutely not. The videos I watched are nothing but a flimsy attempt at discrediting Monckton, there is no discussion at all. You really have to question the things you watch rather than taking them at face value.

" I don't have time."

But yet, you had time to come here and type diatribes like this. Face it, you can't refute ANYTHING this good professor said in his presentation, and more than likely didn't even look at it. Very telling because something THIS IMPORTANT TO ME, I FIND time for.

Why is everything you come out with negative?

Don't make this about me. You made the claim you could "write a ten page paper." Then let's see it. Don't say you can deliver if you can't... that's kind of negative. Have a nice day.

I've had a nice day, thank you, it's evening here :)
I've told you earlier, what on earth would be the point in me writing anything here, I'd be wasting my time.
I don't have such a negative view as you on things like the environment and fossil fuels. If it wasn't for fossil fuels half the people in the world would be in a hell of a worse situation than they are now, and we wouldn't be where we are today. Technology is a good thing, it helps people, it makes people happy and it saves lives.
You can rant and wail all you want, you'll still be here in ten years time but the ice will still be there, CO2 will continue to rise (thank god) and the earth will continue to do its own thing regardless of how much you like to think man is the controlling factor.

I have occasion to travel to Norway and other Scandinavian countries (and the Arctic) from time to time. Recently I flew over Denmark. Looking down it's impossible to see the wind turbines, some of which are actually turning in the wind. A model of green energy - except that it's not!
Denmark has 6000 wind turbines which produce 19% of its electricity. Guess how many fossil-fueled power stations Denmark has been able to close because of its investment in wind power? None. Not one. Not only that, Denmark's CO2 emissions rose by 36% in 2006 alone.
Flemming Nissen, who is the head of development at ELSAM, the West Danish generating company, tells us that “increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.” Germany reports similar findings.
Sorry, no links, all that information is in my head, though I don't doubt it'll be written down somewhere, probably with a tenuous link to oil for your convenience.

Now, I'll get back to enjoying my evening even though it's raining here and with temperatures below 'normal' but hey, that's weather! :)

Yeah symantics are funny that way... I'm not even going to explain myself. I think the context is apparent by the end of the paragraph.

Again, no credible sources, just running on. But since you do love fossil fuel so much, I do hope you then decide to fly over the Gulf of Mexico soon and take a swim.

That comment is just plain stupid and childish.

I'm confused IceKat. What is your position on this matter exactly? Specifically. ie. CO2 can/can't cause warming, humans are/aren't responsible (or the degree to which we are), all of the warming is natural/un-natural, global warming is a conspiracy/big problem etc.