Copenhagen Climate Talks: Monckton "Hitler Youth" Video

It looks like Christopher Monckton, the head of the right-wing CFACT delegation at the Copenhagen climate talks, is unfamiliar with Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.

After calling a group of young people from Sustain US,  “hitler youth” and “Nazis” at the Copenhagen climate summit yesterday, Christopher Monckton confronts the same youth today and says:

“I will not shake the hand of Hitler youth.”

Making it even more unacceptable (if that’s even possible), the person who’s hand he refuses to shake, Ben Wessel, is Jewish.

This is the same Christopher Monckton who once wrote in an article entitled, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS,  that anyone with the disease should be quarantined for life.

This is appalling bigotry and Monckton is completely and utterly out of line for labeling young people who represent our future such things.


I will have a complete transcript shortly.

Here’s a transcript, starting at minute 2:49:

Ben Wessel: First of all my name is Ben [sticks his hand out to shake]

Monckton: No, no. I’m not going to shake the hand of Hitler Youth. I’m sorry.

Wessel: Sir, as a Jew I’m not really sure how I should take that.

Monckton: I’ll tell you how you should take it. You should take it.

Wessel: My grandparents escaped the Nazis growing up in Germany.

Monckton: World food prices have doubled. That it because of the global warming scare.m You won’t look at the science. As a result of that, millions are dying in third world countries because of the biofuel scam, because of the global warming scare.

And you people don’t care. And until you start caring I will call you Hitler youth if you ever again interupt any meeting I am present, where we are trying to have a private conversation.

Note: I really think the youth delegations should test this out on any future events Monckton is at in Copenhagen.

Monckton [talking over everyone]: Tough luck. So now you know what it looks like when you do robotic chants [huh?] of the sort which the Hitler youth used to do in Copenhagen when they occupied this city.

Unidentified youth: Sir, you just need to grow up!

Monckton: So I think you should all just chill out and accept that if you ever behave like that again I will call you that again in public. You’re already now known and your faces around the world are known as members of the Hitler youth.

You people do as much damage to the poor as the Hitler youth did. And you’ve got to accept that if you’re not willing to take it, then you shouldn’t give it. And don’t go around invading people’s meetings again.

Good day to you all.

[Monckton walks away and Wessel follows to apologize]

Wessel: I think its good to not try and drown out other people’s opinions and I do agree with that.

Monckton: That’s what you did. That’s what the Hitler Youth did.

[Monckton interupts Wessel]

Monckton: That what the Hitler youth did. And if you did what the Hitler youth did, I’ll call you what you are - Hitler youth.

And you’ll like or it or you’ll lump it.

Wessel: Okay. I’ll let you know how I feel about that personally in a second.

Monckton: Tough


Wessel: I would like to give you my card, if you would like to discuss this.

Monckton: I do not take the cards of the Hitler youth.

Wessel: This is absurd and I’m just getting a little frustrated.


Monckton: I will call you what you are and you will like it or lump it. And if you dare ever invade any meeting of mine again and behave in that childish, Hitler-ish fashion.

Do I make myself clear?



There must be something wrong with this person if you call someone ”Hitler Jugend’. That’s very offensive.
nokia n97 mini

These brainwashed youth are attempting to deprive people of basic democratic freedoms. Looks quite similar to the cultural revolution in china during the 70’s.

Super foods like Acai berry have started dominating the health market. Reducing weight with Acai berry and its colon cleansing formula is fast becoming a fad among health freaks. However is has been observed that most acai product are often more effective for women than men.

I agree… It’s very offensive… By the way, Hitler is more offensive than calling someone a perv or jerk or some worse words…

is a perfectly legitimate descriptive word, as in one who is a denier of responsibility, of alcohol dependence, or reality, for example.

Those trying to play the victim card would have us believe that the word can only be used in conjunction with the word “holocaust.”

The words “Hitler Youth,” on the other hand, have only one universally repugnant meaning.

Neither Monkton, nor you, deserve a break.

We are not talking about alcohol but reality, nice try. There is not one scientist who denies that the world has warmed. The term denier was placed on any scientist who disagreed with the hypothesis of AGW. Why? Did it have a stupid public connection? A connection to make the uninformed connect with Nazi Germany? I think so. Now while you are defending this please also explain Flat Earther and Contrarian. Better yet, please explain to the world how telling lies and defending them is a good thing even though it is based on flawed science.

Not much on reading for comprehension, are you?

Reality was in fact in my list of examples of denial.

That’s because those who deny the science and evidence showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does in fact warm the atmosphere and surface, that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere, that human activity is responsible for 100% of that increase, that global mean temperature is also increasing, that there is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming or increase in CO2, that the polar cryosphere is warming faster than the rest of the planet, that sea level rise has accelerated, are basically and fundamentally in denial of reality.

There are scientists that deny each and every one of those points, by the way.

But Monkton is no scientist, and I doubt your are either. Asserting that the science is “flawed” and “telling lies” is a perfect example of someone in denial of reality.

Why do you wish to attack me. Your words “There is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming” sounds like a law. Please add to this statement of your fact : +/- .9 . You have not answered one question posed to you. I know (sigh) don’t bother you with facts, you just wish to pontificate. Did you notice-I didn’t call you any names?

Show is where this accelaration is. I don’t see any. Go ahead, check every station, you will not see any accelaration.

Now assuming you are right about all of your speculations, how is that bad? Explain to us how a warmer climate is bad for us. Provide evidence to back up your claims.

just an accurate statement of reality, as anyone who has read the science knows:

There is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming. Full stop.

Your questions are all based on unsupported assumptions: that any scientist who disagrees with the hypothesis of AGW has been labeled a denier, that there is the intention for the word denier to make the uninformed connect it with Nazi Germany, that someone is telling the world lies based on flawed science.

Hate to bother you about facts, but you are going to have to provide a few to substantiate these assumptions before I or anyone else will answer questions based on those assumptions.

“There is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming. Full stop.”

Just because there are “no known natural forcing” dosn’t mean there isn’t any. You are ASSUMING we understand everything about the climate, when we clearly do not.

Second, where is your reference to back up that claim?

just because there is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming doesn’t mean that there isn’t any.

However, it is also true that if we take into account all known natural forcings and add the greenhouse calculated forcing of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, plus known amplifying and damping feedbacks, the result can explain the observed speed and magnitude of observed warming. That suggests that any unknown natural forcings that may exist, such as cosmic ray induced cloud nucleation, will not be anywhere near large enough to do so.

What was the “forcing” in 1934? Was that also global warming?

n-a-t-u-r-a-l v-a-r-i-a-b-i-l-i-t-y?

One record year, and only in the US temp record at that, verses the warmest full decade in the global record, following the previous warmest full decade in the global record.

It’s not about individual record years, or even record decades, it’s about the long term trend. And that trend is up, despite the quitest sun spot cycle of the last hundred years coinciding with a La Nina. And now El Nino is building and 2009 is set to finish among the top five record years.

An the moonbats are telling everyone that it hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

Oh, the stupidity, it burns.

Global mean sea level from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2:

The acceleration from ~1.9 to 2.2 mm/y to ~3 to 3.2 mm/yr was observed around 1992-93, the start of the graph of satellite data on that page.
Since then there has been no additional significant acceleration.

That global mean temperature is increasing is not a speculation, it is a measurable fact.

That the warming is more rapid in the polar cyrosphere is not a speculation, it is an observable and quantifiable phenomenon.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not a speculation, it is a demonstrable fact first shown in the laboratory in 1859.

That CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing is not a speculation, it is measurable and has been since 1958.

That human activity accounts for 100% of the increase in CO2 is not a speculation, it is supported by three independent lines of evidence:

1 - Estimates of annual emissions from fossil fuels are readily computable from annual production and consumption figures, showing that emissions exceed atmospheric increase by ~122%, more than double. In other words, on a simple balance sheet ocean and biosphere absorption can account for ALL natural sources of CO2, PLUS more than half of all fossil fuel emissions.

2 - The change in the 12C : 13C and 12C : 14C isotopic ratio of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with a 13C and 14C depleted source such as fossil carbon fuels.

3 - The slight measured decrease in atmospheric oxygen correlates with the increase in CO2, exactly what would be expected as carbon that has previously been locked out of the active carbon cycle is oxidized and released into the atmosphere.

To call these facts and lines of evidence “speculation” is a perfect example of outright denial of reality.

Thank you so much for providing it, Mr. Wakefield.

NOAA’s satellite altimetry does not agree with ground measurments? Please explain that. I can. All the satelites are seeing is normal variation. Do you see any accelaration in those in situ 100 year measurments? Yes or no.

Holgate, S. J. (2007), On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate

Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

Thus what you are seeing in the satelites is just a tiny blip one of these variations. It is not any indication of any long term accelaration, and the IPCC agrees.

Since you have so many I will deal with each at a time.

Stefan Rahmstorf, Anny Cazenave, John A. Church, James E. Hansen,
Ralph F. Keeling, David E. Parker, Richard C. J. Somerville (2007), Recent climate observations compared to projections, Science Vol.316

“The rate of rise
for the past 20 years of the reconstructed sea
level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any
20-year period in the preceding 115 years. Again,
we caution that the time interval of overlap is
short, so that internal decadal climate variability
could cause much of the discrepancy; it would
be premature to conclude that sea level will continue
to follow this “upper limit” line in future.
The largest contributions to the rapid rise come
from ocean thermal expansion (4) and the melting
from nonpolar glaciers as a result of the
warming mentioned above. Although the ice
sheet contribution has been small, observations
are indicating that it is rapidly increasing, with
contributions both from Greenland and Antarctica
[e.g., (5)].
Overall, these observational data underscore
the concerns about global climate change. Previous
projections, as summarized by IPCC, have
not exaggerated but may in some respects even
have underestimated the change, in particular
for sea level.

References and Notes
1. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
2. J. A. Church, N. J. White, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01602
10.1029/2005GL024826 (2006).
3. A. Cazenave, R. S. Nerem, Rev. Geophys. 42, 20 (2004).
4. J. K. Willis, D. Roemmich, B. Cornuelle, J. Geophys. Res.
109, C12036 10.1029/2003JC002260 (2004).
5. A. Cazenave, Science 314, 1250 (2006); published
online 18 October 2006 (10.1126/science.1133325).
6. J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, S. Jevrejeva, Eos 86, 226 (2005).”

“That global mean temperature is increasing is not a speculation, it is a measurable fact.”

We are not disputing the current warm period. What we dispute is that this warm period is “unnatural”. Thpugh with what we have seen with the CRU one has to wonder about the credibility of the current data used to claim the current warm period especially since the raw data is now gone.

“That the warming is more rapid in the polar cyrosphere is not a speculation, it is an observable and quantifiable phenomenon.”

Maye maybe not. We do not have measurments prior to 50 years ago to know that for sure. What was the temps there during the MWP and the RWP. We know it was much warmer during the interglacials over the past 400,000 years.

“That human activity accounts for 100% of the increase in CO2 is not a speculation, it is supported by three independent lines of evidence:”

You say so but where is your evidence? What’s your reference?

Here’s what I see:
(and don’t give me this BS that this site is unrelyable for what ever reason you can conjure up. Deal with the EVIDENCE)

Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide
Author: Quirk, Tom

Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 105-121(17)


The conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from:

i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes,

ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere and

iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2,

raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
(notice temp and CO2 do not always go together, and notice the level of CO2 then).

Again, don;t shoot the messenger. Deal with the evidence. If you dispute the evidence, make sure you do so with references.

Wakefield, Quirk’s alleged “lack of time delays between the hemispheres” in CO2 concentration was critically discussed earlier this year by Jeremy Jacquot on this very blog.

You my friend have checked out of reality with this quote.

“That human activity accounts for 100% of the increase in CO2 is not a speculation, it is supported by three independent lines of evidence.”

Why don’t you just say every independent instead of three - it would sound more convincing. I hope you are an animal lover because when fossil fuel is eliminated at least they will keep you warm.

It’s a simple arithmetic problem.

Don’t confuse an increase in atmospheric CO2 with exchanges of CO2 between the ocean, biosphere and the atmosphere. That happens all the time on a range of time scales, it’s called the active carbon cycle. There is no net increase, it’s just the same carbon cycling among the three over and over again. A very small amount enters the cycle via volcanic activity each year (less than 1% as much as humans emit), and a very small amount is removed from the cycle each year through sedimentation of calcium carbonate shelled marine organisms, coral formation and silicate rock weathering, but overall there is no net change on anywhere near the scale of the observed increase.

Fossil carbon fuels, on the other hand, contain carbon that has been locked out of the active carbon cycle for tens to hundreds of millions of years. It is for all practical purposes “new” carbon as far as the active carbon cycle is concerned, and we are pumping around 8Gt of it into the atmosphere each year.

In fact, we produce more than twice as much CO2 per year as the total amount of atmospheric CO2 increases each year. That means more than half of our annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and biosphere and become part of the active carbon cycle, the rest is accumulating in the atmosphere. It’s also accumulating in the ocean enough to change the pH of sea water. Thus it can be said that we actually account for around 220% of the annual increase in the atmosphere.

So you see, GMB, my statement that human activity accounts for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is very much grounded in reality.

How do you explain the increases and decreases in CO2 when humans were not around? What was the level of CO2 during the interglacial periods?


Wagner, F., Bohncke, S.J.P., Dilcher, D.L., Kurschner, W.M., van Geel, B. and Visscher, H. 1999. Century-scale shifts in early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science 284: 1971-1973.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations 10,000 years ago were determined to be between 260 and 265 ppm. Thereafter, they rose to a value near 330 ppm over the course of a century. Concentrations remained in the 330 ppm range over the next 300 years, whereupon they declined to about 300 ppm. A second sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to a maximum value of 348 ppm followed, with concentrations hovering between 333 and 347 ppm for the duration of the record.

Same as we are seeing today. But no humans were around to make that change.

Stott, L., Timmermann, A. and Thunell, R. 2007. Southern Hemisphere and deep-sea warming led deglacial atmospheric CO2 rise and tropical warming. Science 318: 435-438.

“deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present, leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical-surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years.”

McElwain, J.C., Mayle, F.E. and Beerling, D.J. 2002. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. Journal of Quaternary Science 17: 21-29.

“The observation that the decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration at the onset of the Younger Dryas lagged the decline in temperature by some 130 years clearly demonstrates that the change in the air’s CO2 content did not cause the change in temperature, but that the temperature drop - or whatever caused it - was responsible for the decline in CO2 concentration.”

Muhs, D.R., Ager, T.A. and Begét, J.E. 2001. Vegetation and paleoclimate of the last interglacial period, central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 41-61.

“Analysis and synthesis of the authors’ data with results reported elsewhere created an “overall picture that emerges for Alaska and Yukon during the peak warmth of the last interglacial [as] a region with warmer-than-present summers, an absence of permafrost in the interior, and probably greater precipitation in the interior.” How much warmer was it? Based upon the expanded boreal forest ranges in this area, the authors estimate that summer temperatures were at least 1-2°C warmer than they are presently, and that in some locations summer temperatures may have been as much as 3-5°C higher than they are now.”

Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

“Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration were found to lag behind variations in air temperature by 1.3 to 5 ka (thousand years). Phase relations between CO2 and global ice volume were not as clear cut. When CO2 values were compared with global ice volume data derived from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variations in CO2 lagged behind changes in global ice volume by 1.4 ± 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to the present they lead by 6.2 ± 2.7 ka. A more uniform phase relationship was obtained when comparing the Vostok CO2 record with a Vostok delta 18O record. Although considerable scatter existed in the data, atmospheric CO2 concentration consistently led global ice volume by an average of 3.9 ± 0.5 ka.”

Pearson, P.N. and Palmer, M.R. 2000. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature 406: 695-699.

“Starting 60 million years before present (BP), the authors have the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration at approximately 3600 ppm and the oxygen isotope ratio at about 0.3 per mil. Thirteen million years later, however, the air’s CO2 concentration has dropped all the way down to 500 ppm; but the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the “large and predictable effect” of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.”

Pearson, P.N. and Palmer, M.R. 1999. Middle Eocene seawater pH and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science 284: 1824-1826.

Staufer, B., Blunier, T., Dallenbach, A., Indermuhle, A., Schwander, J., Stocker, T.F., Tschumi, J., Chappellaz, J., Raynaud, D., Hammer, C.U. and Clausen, H.B. 1998. Atmospheric CO2 concentration and millennial-scale climate change during the last glacial period. Nature 392: 59-62.

What these show is swings in CO2 happen, period. They can be large (several times increase) or minor like today’s few percent increase. Also these show that there is not a 1:1 correlation between rising CO2 and temp changes.

Hence, it is not definative that CO2 increase now is all from us. Also it is not definative that this increase in temps is entirely due to that CO2.

we’re in an interglacial period.

The CO2 level prior to the industrial revolution was ~280 ppm, and probably several ppm higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000-8000 years ago, athough Stauffer & Stocker challenge the Wagner et al finding of 300-330 ppm levels.

The last interglacial, the Eocene, was a bit warmer so CO2 was a bit higher, ~290-300 ppm on average. In between, during the Last Glacial Maximum it was way down around 180 ppm.

These natural increases and decreases in CO2 are explained by the fact that CO2 solubility in sea water is dependent on water temperature. That’s right, I just admitted that CO2 can follow temperature, normally follows in fact. Why shouldn’t I when temperature is being driven by relatively strong Milankovitch Cycle orbital changes in insolation?

But the fact orbital forcing is ~12,000 years past peak and in decline, so it can not possibly be causing any of the current warming, nor the current increase in CO2. In short, your examples are wholly irrelevant to the current situation, where CO2 has increased by ~38% in less than 200 years.

What was the rate of CO2 emissions 150 years ago? When was the bulk of our emissions? That is, at what date did we past the 50% of all of our emissions?

Thn explain how such a puny little amount of emissions, which was so until about 1950, altered the temps upwards, forcing against a “natural” decline?

And if we were supposed to decline more than the LIA would not a warmer time be better?

occurred by circa 1950 (over ~150 years), the other half since 1950 (~60 years).

That would be an increase of 19%, which though smaller than 38% is hardly puny.

But your question implied that someone contends that the increase in CO2 alone altered temps upward before 1950, when in fact no one contends that. This is an example of constructing a straw man argument, a common tactic used by greenhouse warming deniers.

CO2science? Jennifer Marohasy? Energy & Environment? Friends of Science?

What a hoot! Thanks for the laugh as well, JR.

BTW, even Roy Spencer finally gave up and admitted that the CO2 increase could not be from natural sources.
Guess you didn’t get the memo.

Still shooting the messenger, eh? As I said deal with the EVIDENCE. Show us with evidence why what I linked to is wrong.

I’m highly biased toward reality and away from pseudo-science and moonbattery.

“that there is no known natural forcing that can account for the magnitude or speed of the observed warming”

I can list several theories to help you on this.. such as the CERN research now underway.

But I suspect you are in denial, and you think doing science is an act of belief, rather than skepticism.

What you could list are several as yet untested hypotheses, including Svensmark’s solar modulated cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis, which the CERN CLOUD experiments are designed to test, but they have yet to be completed, so let’s let science run its course, shall we?

Actually, far from being in denial, I have an open mind on the cosmic ray hypothesis. It may well prove that solar wind modulated cosmic rays do have an impact on climate, but I am properly skeptical that the impact will be very large, and very skeptical that it will be naywhere near as large as greenhouse gas forcing. The only thing I know for sure is that it will be completely independent of greenhouse gas forcing, and thus could not possibly disprove the greenhouse theory as so many “skeptics” mistakenly believe.

I agree. That people who fall for any half baked argument, provided it goes against mainstream scientific opinion on AGW, call themselves ‘skeptics’ amounts to a gross misuse of language.They are of course the very opposite. A certain Jon F.Buck put it eloquently in the Arizona Daily Star:

“Those who disagree with the consensus position of working climatologists–that there is strong evidence that anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases is causing and will cause harmful lower tropospheric warming–like to call themselves “skeptics”. “Skeptic” is a highly respectable label. No mere synonym for “doubter” or “one who disagrees”, it carries with it connotations of modesty, caution in forming an opinion, and careful consideration of evidence. A skeptic does not choose a side and set out in search of evidence for his chosen side; a skeptic bases his position on the evidence and is openly aware of that position’s weaknesses, tending always toward modesty and toward qualifying his statements when in doubt.

Skepticism is the behavior expected of working scientists and social scientists of all disciplines, and it can be said to be institutiionalized in the written and unwritten rules for communication, evaluation, and validation of scientific conclusions. There’s thus an implicit insult in the adoption of “skeptic” by doubters of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to set themselves apart from climatologists and those who have been following their work. Such usage carries with it the implication that scientists, especially working climatologists, are acting in an unscientific manner, that they are not being skeptical but have instead rushed to a conclusion. The “skeptics” have yet to substantiate this with a scientifically sound argument against AGW or even against the mainstream assessment of the strength of the evidence. Some might say that such arguments are being made but have been, to date, suppressed, but with rapid electronic transmission of hundreds of pages of text and graphics to thousands of readers well within the means of anyone in the developed world, such suppression is unlikely. Nonetheless the doubters have succeeded in convincing a considerable proportion of the public that, to the exclusion of people who agree with the mainstream assessment of climate science, they are the skeptics.

In addition to insult, there is irony in this. It’s very difficult to find a skeptical doubter. The very few who are working scientists have taken to avoiding presenting their arguments for frank evaluation by fellow experts at professional society meetings or through journal articles, preferring instead to directly address a public ill-equipped for meaningful criticism by writing books and newspaper opinions and presenting at think-tank conferences. Those who are not scientists (and some of those who are) do not merely avoid institutionalized skepticism; they also exhibit a sort of credulity, a refusal to distinguish good argument from bad, and a tendency to believe even silly arguments against AGW while rejecting some of the most sound and most modest arguments in favor. That is the opposite of skepticism.”

Amen to that.

maybe the agw crowd should replace the word “skeptic” with “doubter”

I’m good with that.

Kevin, disrupting peoples democratic right of free speech and assembly. Lord Mockton has every right to call a spade a spade.

Sounds ugly having not seen it.

How old is the youth - teenager? I hate it when teenagers get all self righteous - not saying that’s the case here, but wouldn’t be surprised.

You’ll see that the youth are very polite. I talked to the young Jewish kid who Monckton refuses to shake the hand of. He is very disturbed by the confrontation. As you’ll see in the video, he is very respectful and polite.

wow - well in Monckton’s world people are starving because of the agw movement. I don’t believe that, but he does and if that were actually true then the youths who are organized to cheer on the agw parade could be likened to Hitler youth I guess.

The actual Hitler youth were just ordinary young people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He is very angry and rightfully so. He sees the deception in the Climate ‘movement.” He knows what the goal really is and so does at least of half of North America. It ain’t gonna happen here.

I am proud to have a pit bull like Monckton speaking for meat that pot luck you refer to as Copenhagen.

One thing .. Perhaps the term ‘brown shirts’ would be a better term to use than ‘Hitler youth’. It is to compare the mesmerized youth who believe the utter garbage that Gore and the IPCC is spewing on behalf of their ‘betters’ with the blind devotion Germany’s youth had for Hitler.

It will go hard on them in the future when they finally realized that there was no climate disaster waiting in the wings and that they were duped. To make matters worse, if this movement succeeds, all the useful idiots will wonder where their standard of living disappeared to, not to mention their money and their freedom.

Sorry, I normally would not make fun of someone’s physical appearance, but he did call these young people Hitler Youth and you used the dog analogy–at least twice now.

Talk about useful idiots.

“Talk about useful idiots.” Your words. Dude, what up. You have strayed so far from the topic. Hitler - Nazi - Denier. And yet you continue to name call. How many feet of snow will cool your jets?

His only goal is to derail any progress at Copenhagen

I think pit bulls are smarter

I’m sure he’s been coached to use nazi comparisons,the same playbook as Beck/Limbaugh/Palin, that’ll be bouncing all over at clusterFox

It will go hard on all of us when “we” finally realiize there is a climate disaster waiting in the wings and that we’re all screwed. Forget standard of living, how about survival…

‘He is very angry and rightfully so. He sees the deception in the Climate ‘movement.” ’

And his deceptions:

To accuse those young people of murdering millions in Africa from starvation. What a hypocrite with his smart suit and affluent life style jetting all over to spread his peculiar brand of disinformation. It is the likes of him, and to a lesser extent us, who’s profligate use of resources comes at the expense of others.

This is nowhere more so than in the rush to use thousands of acres of valuable land to grow bio-fuel crops such as maize this to profit those involved in production, a production which incidentally is grossly inefficient by consuming other fuel resources, and so that the love affair with the SUV can continue awhile longer. There is another component of the tragedy of the commons.

Your proud of Monckton the pit bull. I was pondering what those eyes reminded me of and then I realised that this is one chameleon that is unlikely to change colour.

If Monckton does not like that comparison then tough.

Monckton, Limbaugh, Beck and the rest are playing upon the increasing ignorance of the population at large. Those who have not nurtured the skills of critical thinking. The sort of ignorance explored by Susan Jacoby in her fine book,’The Age of American Unreason’. Science is a tough subject to study and atmospheric science is tougher than most, many of the concepts are counter intuitive as with the need to grapple with quantum mechanics to explain how it is that CO2 acts in a positive feedback mode.

Don’t scoff at RealClimate for there is much of value there you could learn. It is apolitical as any fair minded person who takes time to study there will know. In particular look out for David Archer’s ‘Offering’ with links to video of an actual Climate Science lecture series. Also take note of his book ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’, find a copy and study it. I could recommend others and also books on oceanography which will help in understanding the complex flows of fluids, including continents, around our globe.

You may also need access to books on Chemistry – Inorganic, Organic and Physical. In a book on Physical Chemistry you will learn about the phases of water and the importance of latent heat of fusion and of evaporation. Did you know that it take 80 times the number of calories to melt a given mass of ice as it does to raise a similar mass of water by 1 degree C and that 540 times as much heat is released as the same mass of water as steam condenses into water. Hence the terrific thermostatic effect of the poles and the heat transport that results in tropical storms.

So stop scoffing and start learning some real science not the sort of pseudoscience peddled by Monckton et. al.

Let me explain something to you. If I make more money than you, I may decide to buy a real nice tv and other electronic equipment. Guess what buddy, I earned and I can use as much energy as I want. Increasing co2, even doubling it, will lead to very little warming. But if the natural feedbacks like water vapor and clouds act in a certain way, the warming will be very strong. Luckily, the feedbacks are strongly negative because they have to be. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are on the brink of proving this but it will take time. But based on their satellite observations there would already be more warming if the feedbacks were indeed positive. Realclimate is completely political and Roy Spencers website is much better. And you goofs cry all about SUVs. What if you have a big family? We have 7 in our family so we have to have an SUV. Or we could buy 3 Prius’s which would be much less efficient. Thank God America is still a free country, I bet if you had your way you wouldn’t let people hang christmas lights.

Should have been the title of your last triple post, triple post, triple post!

Dang, now I have caught the habit!

Whatever CO2 is ‘very unreactive’.

Really. I wonder if Harold Urey knew that?

I am pleased that you have mentioned Lindzen and Spencer. Check them out shoooooooooosh, you don’t have to go far:

Now as for your:

‘I bet if you had your way you wouldn’t let people hang christmas lights.’

Now there is a thought. Thanks.

And here I thought a central theme of greenhouse gas driven climate change deniers is that CO2 can only be a feedback and not a forcing. (Completely wrong, btw.)

Reality check: If CO2 increases in response to an initial increase in temperature and then adds ANY additional warming then it is by definition an amplifying feedback.

The header and the text of shooshmon’s post are diametrically opposed, but then such internal contradiction isn’t at all uncommon among greenhouse theory deniers.

Furthermore, shooshmon’s assertion that feedbacks are strongly negative because they “have to be” precedes Lindzen’s successful defense of his “iris effect” hypothesis. That makes it statement of faith, not science.

Natural feedbacks to an initial increase in temperature apply no matter what the source of initial warming, be it an increase in solar intensity, an orbital driven increase in solar insolation, a decrease in albedo, or an increase in greenhouse gas levels.

The strong net negative feedback hypothesis undermines not just the greenhouse theory, but all of the competing “what if” explanations as well. It also renders it impossible to explain the temperature change between a glacial stade and an interglacial as the insolation change in watts/meter^2 is simply not large enough unless amplified by feedbacks, much less explain the hothouse temperatures of the Cretaceous and Eocene.

Yet another example of the internal contradictions of greenhouse theory denier arguments.