Lord Monckton Challenges Global Warming on Glenn Beck, Part 2


Editor’s Note: If you have not read Part 1 of this 5-part series you are strongly encouraged to do so.

As I wrote in my reply to Wayne’s question in Part I of this series, in this installment, I’m going to describe the way in which I feel we should begin our argument when addressing the general public about the AGW hoax, but before I start, we need to go just a bit more deeply into the history of climate change itself.

In the following graph, we can see all the way back to the Precambrian era, some 4.5 billion years ago. During this period we can see that the earth went through periods of extreme cold, when the temperature averages per year were as low as 10°C (50°F) and through periods of extreme warmth when the temperature averages per year were 25°C (77°F). The difference between those extremes, was far bigger than the difference between the extremes of the last 1000 years, from the medieval warm period to the little ice age. In fact our mean average during the last 1000 years, has even been below the mean average of 17°C (62.6°F) for the time period going back to the earliest days of our planet.


Click image for larger version.

Putting the two in perspective, we can clearly see that our current relatively warm temperatures are well below the temperatures of the medieval warm period, during which all living things thrived, and which were even further below the temperatures during the days of the dinosaurs. In other words, at the present time we’re not very warm at all!

All of this brings us back to my belief that the best way to start our pitch, is to simply show the original graph of the last thousand years:


After which we point to the medieval warm period, during which ALL living things flourished in temperatures roughly 3.5°C (5.4°F) warmer than we are today, after which we point to the far right side of the graph, and ask the simple question:


From that point in the presentation, we should lay out the three basic elements of the AGW hoax:

1. That there really IS no crisis in the first place,
2. That WARMING is beneficial, and that extreme COOLING is the only thing that we need be concerned about, and
3. That increasing CO2 levels have virtually no meaningful effect on changing temperatures in the first place.

From that point, a brief explanation of the 3rd point above is necessary, before going off into such arguments as the economic costs versus the insignificant benefits to which huge reductions in hydrocarbon emissions can possibly lead. It’s necessary to do this for the simple reason that the entire AGW hoax, is based on the absurd theory that increasing CO2 levels are the primary cause of the recent warming, when they’re not even a significant one. And this in fact, is also simple and quick to demonstrate.

The CO2 myth can be explained from a number of different starting points, but I think the best way to begin is by showing the following graph or one very similar.


The first thing we see in the graph above, is that while the rate of rise in arctic air temperatures from 1975 to 2000 runs roughly parallel to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for the same period, during the preceding period from 1940 to 1975, they run in exactly the opposite way. The second thing we see, is that the rate of rise during the longer period from 1880 to 1940, which goes up at just about the same rate as the rise from 1975 to 2000, has virtually no similarity at all to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for THAT same period.

I’d then point out 2 more things in order to bury the CO2 myth for good. The first is to point out are that the 200 years of warming that led to the peak of the medieval warm period, clearly had nothing to do with rising levels of CO2, because man had hardly even begun to use hydrocarbon based fuels, and second, that during the same period from roughly 1880 to 2000 while the earth was warming, the temperatures on Mars and the moons of Jupiter, were going up at virtually the same rate as the earth’s, and they CLEARLY had nothing to do with the use of hydrocarbon based fuels. This of course leads us to the obvious conclusion, which is demonstrated by the big swiggly RED line in the graph above representing the changing rate of SOLAR ACTIVITY which almost perfectly parallels the entire rise in arctic air temperature, to the closing line of part one of our presentation:


In Part III we’ll go into some of the other issues closely related to climate change, such as rising sea levels, shrinking ice packs, and of course, those poor suffering polar bears.