Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Meet the Climate Sceptics

UPDATE A second video has been added based on a comment. Normally I don't do 'updates' but this is too good to pass by.

Filmmaker Rupert Murry follows British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton to Australia and America where he makes his case against the link between global emissions and threats from climate change.

The episode has been broken into 4 parts.

Is this credible science or the hijacking of public opinion and policy debates???

And now a video claiming to debunk Lord CM. Please watch and decide.


  1. He is an idiot, as proven time and time again. Don't associate with him. I hate to say it, but you will lose credibility by doing so.

  2. He certainly struck me that way (as well as the filmmaker, based on his comment near the end regarding a willingness to accept a degree of curtailment for the sake of the planet.) I thought I'd post the doco for all to see and make up their own minds.

    Do you think Monckton comes off as anything other than preposterously outlandish in the post or the doco?

    Regardless of either of our opinions, the fact is that this man and similar people (and this and similar approaches to a 'debate') define a significant obstacle the world must overcome in addition to HUGE technical challenges before us. Until we begin to see tangible action - which I will define as a downward trend in emissions, capable of meeting the necessary goals - I will assume this man and and similar people continue to achieve their objective:


  3. "Potholer54" is a science journalist who has maintained a pretty active youtube channel making educational vides on science topics and debunking bad science. He recently finished a three video series addressing several of Monckton's claims about climate science. These claims are typically backed by either cherry-picked data or simply unsubstantiated opinion which Monckton backpedals upon when asked for sources.

    This is the first video:

  4. Thanks - I've added to the main post.

  5. I watched the debunking and it's actually surprising how Monckton is wrong so much of the time because he either does not understand the science and because is not a scientific thinker who knows how to do basic things like read the conclusions from a paper he borrows data from or he is collecting money in a secret bank account from fossil fuel industry polluters.

  6. I thought it wouldn't take long before the nuclear lobby pounced on Climate Change as a selling point for their product!
    I almost feel sorry for the nuclear lobby, especially in Australia. A lot of other corporations are Climate Sceptics, because they want to keep on making money out of polluting industries.
    So - the nuclear lobby can't really count on their support. Nuclear power would be too late, too expensive, and too dirty, to have any real impact on global warming, not to mention the nuclear fuel cycle's own greenhouse emissions.
    So, to market the idea to Australians, the nuclear lobby is forced to dig up anyone who is amenable to their message, call him an "environmentalist", and push the Climate Change line.

  7. Welcome Christina.

    In consideration of your anti-nuclear campaigning work, I've put some effort into a semi-comprehensive reply. Unfortunately, the reply is too long for this comment field. So I have published it as a stand alone Blog post.

  8. That video is consistent with what I have understood re Monckton's effusions.
    But the nuclear industry doesnt need global warming to support its case. There are 60 nuclear power reactors now under active construction and two more undergoing complete rebuild in Canada. There are 150 more firmly planned, and likely to start construction within 3-4 years. These all make economic sense - though reasons of energy security support the case, and carbon emission limitation may do so in future. However, at least 42 of the 60 plants being built are in countries where this is not a present priority.

  9. Totally agree Ian. Worldwide, at the moment, the best case for nuclear energy (i.e. plants being built) is related to energy security.

    Would you anticipate the serious, near-term, say 15 years, consideration of nuclear energy in Australia (i.e. revision of current legislation) without a price on carbon or some similar environmentally based motivation?

    If so, I'd be interested in your thoughts.