Careful. Monckton is not a scientist and many of his claims are suspect. See here, here and here.
Thanks for providing those links, Cork. Too bad the Greenpeace woman didn't know her facts either, as she seemed unable to respond to him articulately. In the case of Monckton, however, I think he would probably say that even if all the climate change proponents are right, their cure is worse than the disease.The last link, though, has the best counter to him, it appears.Of course if you hate the state, the problem is that nearly all the sky is falling climate changers are statists to the core and so are the solutions they propose.Of course all of this assumes that an increase in global temperatures and CO2 levels is a bad thing, something that I'm not willing to do.The writer mentions Monckton's claim that "a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades". If Monckton claims that it is silly, but just because not "all" malaria deaths can be so attributed doesn't mean that many can't. And DDT did prevent "500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable." That's according to the National Academy of Sciences (1970).He also fails to mention that enviro-kook Rachel Carson lied about DDT in her fraudulent 1962 book Silent Spring, and her lies have done far more harm to humanity than anything that could ever come out of the mouth of Lord Monckton.
Too bad the Greenpeace woman didn't know her facts either, as she seemed unable to respond to him articulately. In some areas I honestly have no idea where Monckton is coming up with his facts. His claim that there has been no warming in 15 years is one that I think even most climate skeptics would find outlandish. You can look at the data yourself.Of course if you hate the state, the problem is that nearly all the sky is falling climate changers are statists to the core and so are the solutions they propose.And most antiwar people are socialists. So?This is exactly my problem with the anti-AGW crowd: they're basing their science purely off of their poitics. You'll notice that I haven't said one thing political this entire debate. I'm simply arguing that the science of gw deniers doesn't withstand scrutiny.Look, I would love if it was a hoax. Unfortunately, it isn't. Of course all of this assumes that an increase in global temperatures and CO2 levels is a bad thing, something that I'm not willing to do.In that case, there's not much I can say to change your mind.I'm just saying: make sure you get both sides of this story ;)
I'm just saying: make sure you get both sides of this story ;)That's why I'm glad you're one of my fellow Skeptical Eye contributors. If the skeptical in the name of this blog is to mean anything, then we sure shouldn't always agree with each other!
And most antiwar people are socialists. So?Apples and oranges. To oppose war is to oppose the state, making leftists, on that issue at least, natural allies. The global warming leftists are a different matter, as to oppose "climate change" in their terms is to increase the power of the state.
Again, politics is really irrelevant to the science (which is really all that I'm discussing at this point).We can't talk about what is or isn't statism before defining aggression, and the question at hand is whether excessive amounts of CO2 can qualify as a sort of "aggression."To assume that government is the only solution to anything is to concede that the statists are right. Most of the progress we've made so far has had little to do with government. People just learned the science and started buying green. Companies are trying to innovate, with little support from libertarians (which is a little bizarre). Al Gore is making movies when he isn't polluting his ass off. It just seems like a defeatist statist mentality to assume government is the only answer to gw.If the skeptical in the name of this blog is to mean anything, then we sure shouldn't always agree with each other!Agreed!
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.