Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming — ‘Escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his UN credentials’

Monckton to UN: ‘In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming’

Calls to ‘deport Monckton’ from UN conference in Qatar

Posted by Marc Morano at Climate Depot with Excerpts from Jean Chemnick at E&E Greenwire

After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president’s assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.

“In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

Read the rest at Climate Depot.

26 Responses to Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming — ‘Escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his UN credentials’

  1. Rob N. Hood December 9, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    Lord Muckety Muck snuck into another person’s assigned seat and spoke his piece as an uninvited speaker, etc. Yes, he had a pass to be there but not to participate or act rudely. While I actually appreciate such guerilla-type non-violent tactics, the article posted here skews the incident beyond what occurred in reality, as usual.

    • NEILIO December 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

      And you know what occured in reality? Oh, sorry. You’re just upset because those kind of tactics are reserved for your side. How dare he do something that you appreciate!

  2. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    I just stated the facts surly Sir N. And I didn’t criticize Lord Muckety Muck for using those tactics on the contrary, I agree with them. My criticism was with the article, as I stated in plain English. You really need some remedial comprehension training or something.

    • Peter A. December 30, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

      Rob (ignoring my previous commitment to completely ignore you for the rest of eternity), do you honestly believe it is clever to attack someone personally by insulting them with an offensive moniker?

      • Rob N. Hood January 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

        Offensive?? I thought I was being very lenient with Sir Neilio, final arbitor and all around site watchdog. See?? There’s another example of my current good nature. It must be the holidays…

        I’m also sorry I missed your pledge to ignore me. Didn’t even notice. Besides, Neil picks up the slack usually, good ol’ loyal boy that he is.

        • Peter A. January 2, 2013 at 6:03 am #

          Not not Neilio, Lord Monckton!

        • Peter A. January 2, 2013 at 6:22 am #

          You don’t remember me? :( I used to go by the name ‘Peter the Proud Sceptic’. I changed my name here not to confuse, but because the name was a little… presumptuous.

  3. Peter A. December 30, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

    An interesting reaction, to say the least. Were the ‘confused murmurs’ a result of Mr. Monckton directly challenging the accepted dogma of AGW, rather than his ‘stunt’ of taking the Burmese (I refuse to acknowledge the name ‘Myanmar’ imposed by despotic, Chinese-backed junta) delegate’s chair? Why didn’t they recognise who he was – one of the world’s leading ‘deniers’ – sooner? So, when they finally wake up to what is occurring they decide to ‘boo’ him; how typically childish of the U.N. (and predictable).

  4. Rob N. Hood January 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

    If you think the UN is childish, what is your take on 5 year olds? They must be in some kind of other-worldly category and I’m dying to find out what that is.

  5. Rob N. Hood January 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    oh well

    • Peter A. January 3, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

      Oh well, what?

  6. Rob N. Hood January 4, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    You didn’t respond to my question that’s what. Sheesh, play dumb much?

    • Peter A. January 4, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

      Okay, my ‘take’ on five year-olds. My point about the U.N. delegates acting like five year-olds was that they were demonstrating a level of maturity (i.e. they were not very mature at all) that a child would display when they booed Mr. Monckton. The intelligent, and therefore mature, response to a claim being made – ANY serious claim being made – that you happen to disagree with is to present a response that in some way, shape or form falsifies what your opponent believes to be true.

      This is not hard, surely. It should be within the realm of possibility for the representatives of an organisation with the resources and expertise of the United Nations to demonstrate, once and for all, that sceptics such as Mr. Monckton are wrong about global warming. The fact that they have repeatedly failed to do so speaks volumes.

  7. Rob N. Hood January 5, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    So now you’re saying 5 year olds and the UN are basically the same- due to some booing. Thus all booing is childish? My point: using “childish” to paint the UN is, well, kind of childish. Methinks you could come up with a better adjective for the UN. And if you think the UN is childish, then you must also think all elevated human endeavors, for example government, for one, is also childish. I disagree, while at the same time agree that there are some people in those institutions who are childish. We all can be childish, and have our little child in us for life basically. The challenge, as adults, is to overcome those childish impulses, and aim for higher standards, day to day. And I also fail to grasp your notion that the UN has failed to discredit global warming skeptics. Isn’t booing one of them just such a demonstration? Granted it was an ad hoc spur of the moment response, but still, you’re argument fails on it own merits.

    • Peter A. January 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

      A better adjective to describe the U.N. Hmm… let me think. Bureaucratic, incompetent, nosy, ineffective, misguided, overbearing, worthless, pointless, myopic, idiotic, superfluous, asinine, moronic… I think that will suffice for now.

      No, not ‘all’ booing is ‘childish’, but there is a time and place for it, and a major meeting of U.N. delegates assembled to discuss what had been touted as an issue of major, global importance is not one of them. Intelligent people not only understand that views that are unconventional and controversial should be tolerated and listened to because one cannot assume one’s own omniscience on any subject, but they also understand that important insights and breakthroughs can, and do, arise from such views quite often. Only a person with a dangerously exalted view of her/his own importance, and with an extremely fragile ego, would try to silence an opinion that they happened to dislike. Is it just a co-incidence that the U.N. seems to be full of such people? You’ll probably say, ‘no, it’s just my imagination’.

      ‘And I also fail to grasp your notion that the UN has failed to discredit global warming skeptics.’ Well, let’s see now. For decades now they’ve been telling us that the science, which was reached via a consensus of scientists and not by using the scientific method, has conclusively proven that industrial CO2 is, and has been in the past, the cause of a dangerous warming trend, and that to dispute this conclusion of theirs is tantamount to heresy. The science is settled!
      The major problem though is that the actual historical and meteorological evidence does not support their view. The apparent correlation between rising temperatures and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is the wrong way around (i.e. first there is heating, and then the CO2 increases), long periods of relatively high temperatures in the past actually led to prosperity rather than catastrophe (ex. the Medieval Warm Period, Ancient Rome), global cooling in the past correlated to decline (ex. Dark Ages, although historians no longer use the term ‘Dark Ages’ to describe the period circa A.D. 476 to A.D. 800), the post-war ‘economic boom’ (approx. 1945 to 1975) period witnessed an overall decline in temperatures even though, due to the increased level of industrialisation there was a much higher release of CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend over the last few years (since 1998) of cooling… Need I continue? These are just the few examples that I can think of right now, happily typing away, but I’m sure that there are many others, and a quick ‘Google’ search will reveal literally thousands of other examples.

      In science, nothing is ever ‘proven’ in the mathematical sense of that word, which is the only context within which the word ‘proof’ actually fulfills its true meaning. Evidence is the key word in science, with the discoveries that are made being placed upon a spectrum of truth, from highly provisional (ex. ball lightning) to the certainty of law (ex. classical mechanics). Strangely enough, all we seem to hear from the global warming cultists are words like ‘certainty’, ‘proof’, ‘proven’, ‘undoubted’, ‘undisputed’, ‘must not be denied’ et cetera. This is not science.

      ‘Granted it was an ad hoc spur of the moment response…’ So the officials of the U.N. now engage in impulsive behaviour. Shouldn’t I be worried about this?

      • Peter A. January 5, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

        Clarification: I mentioned ‘the certainty of law’ in reference to classical mechanics, and this certainty is due to the fact that there have been no examples of the laws, as they are understood, being falsified. They can be counted on to work with regular consistency, but even so the word ‘proof’ is not used in reference to them because the word itself is problematic within such a context. Like I said, ‘proof’ is best left to the mathematicians.

        When someone uses the word ‘proof’ in the wrong context (ex. this cream has been scientifically proven to reduce fine lines and wrinkles) you can be sure that you have stumbled upon a false and/or misleading claim. It is pseudo-science, not science, and yet the word is used regularly, and in a cavalier manner, by most, if not all, of the so-called experts in reference to AGW who believe it to be a real threat to humanity.

        • Peter A. January 5, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

          Another clarification: I should have wrote ‘there have been no experimental examples falsifying the laws…’, or words to that effect. I seem to be making a lot of mistakes today :(.

  8. Peter A. January 5, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    One other point. If an experiment is performed, or an example found within nature, that goes against a particular hypothesis that one may have formulated to account for whatever phenomenon it may be that one is investigating, the hypothesis in question is either modified or abandoned altogether. There have been countless examples over the decades of nature not doing what was ‘predicted’ it aught to do according to the global warming computer models. My question is: Why, therefore, are we still discussing this nonsense in the year 2013?

    Over to you Robin Hood! (Or anyone else here who might be able to give a satisfactory answer to this).

  9. Rob N. Hood January 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    How about melting ice and the rise of ocean levels? Of course this doesn’t prove AGW, but since it coincides with it it does provide an correlation to be recloed with. That is, of course, if you believe all the reports re: ice melt (not everywhere, but in most places).

    • Peter A. January 6, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

      The ice isn’t melting. There is a seasonal flux that results in the ice contracting and expanding, and this has been going on since long before humans even existed. The oceans are not rising. The islands of the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, are still there. As I understand it, the ice in the Antarctic is actually getting thicker.

      • Rob N. Hood January 8, 2013 at 9:30 am #

        Your beliefs aren’t backed up by reality. Except: the Antarctic ice may be increasing as I understand it, but the Arctic is a different story. The key is overall melting of course. And yes, those small islands still exist, sigh, but they are slowly losing ground and in danger of disappearing. But it’s all about what/who you chose to believe since neither of us have been to any of those places.

        • Steve January 25, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

          So the premise of your statement is that ice, currently floating (therefore displacing) water is melting and thus displacing MORE water. You know what ice is made of, so I presume you can guess its displacement while in a solid state vs when it melts. So WHY I ask are the sea levels rising if the only thing that is changing is the temperature of the water and not the volume? I know science is confusing, but we have no confirmed water level rise, no confirmed ice level change, no confirmed change in climate documented ANYWHERE on the planet and the crux of your argument is that frozen water increases the total volume of the oceans when it melts. OK. where is the science here?

  10. Rob J W January 26, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Mmm. First visit here. Love the “to and fros.” The AGWers are so good ad dogma based on myth. First, almost anything the UN says or does is either wrong (CO2 heating the Earth- it didn’t in aons past when the levels were much higher than now or in our projected future), confused (eg, their threatening Saddam Hussein, then disappearing once the war got going) and ineffectual (warding off and controlling the tyrants of this world). The US should have evicted all of the UN and payed nothing to its operations decades ago, but the US has its own problems with reality, too.

    The truth is there are no disappearing islands, the Arctic is subjected to warming/cooling conditions quite different to Antarctica- land/sea interfaces are completely different, and there is much greater underwater volcanic activity causing more concentrated heating compared to Antartica.
    Antarctic ice is near an all-time high! The recent and ongoing severe winters do not gel with Global Warming at all, and while this doesn’t in any way prove one thing or another, it certainly doesn’t fit the predictions of a years ago by the AGWers who used and still use, any fire or extremely hot days somewhere on Earth to shout “WARMING” though it has become Climate Change. Of course, CC HAS to be warming and not just erratic climatic conditions, because if C)2 is the culprit for any climate change, it can ONLY be warming.

    It’s all about the Earth’s trajectory around the Sun and sunspot activity! We are due to go into an Ice Age and that will be far more serious than any global warming, which, if it happened, would open up vast tracts of new farming land in the Northern Hemisphere. That, however, is the one horror AGWers dread, because that will provide cheaper food for more people and you know what that means….

  11. Brian C January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

    “So the premise of your statement is that ice, currently floating (therefore displacing) water is melting and thus displacing MORE water.” Steve nailed it here, you are saying ocean levels are rising, melting ice cannot do this. You have proof that ice is melting and raising sea levels?

    On to the real problem with global warming, thermodynamics states that heat must escape. this is generally accepted as a truth. Agree?

    Global warming is the (trapping) of heat to cause a constant rise in global temps.. this is the premise of the AGW argument.

    So tell me, if I have a closed system, and I give this system heat for 12 hours, and then remove the heat for 12 hours.. how would i measure the (global warming) effect?

    would it be overall heat? or how long the heat is trapped in the 12 hours the system is not receiving heat?

    The temperature of the Sun’s heat is roughly 200 degrees F in space, in the daytime period it heats the side of the planet for 12 hours, but the temperature does not reach 200 F for a few simple reasons. Earth reflects heat into space due to oceans, clouds, and other smaller factors (not carbon). And the net heat received is only enough to give you your daytime high.

    And increase in the greenhouse effect would give you warmer temperatures after your daytime high, but would not INCREASE the high.. if my stove is set to run @ 300 F, and i stick a pan on it, fill it with water, and cover it, guess how hot the temperature gets? (hint: not hotter than 300F)

    anyway, you have daytime temps controlled by heat in, vs reflective surface, resistance, convection, and overall mass.. and nighttime temps controlled by water vapor (the real greenhouse gas) and slight infrared radiation from the earth’s surface. If you really want to gauge whether or not we have global warming, you should be concerned with daytime vs nighttime temps.. and not the daytime highs.

    Fireball earth cannot happen, if you destabilize liquid water and turn it into a gas, you have a cloud covered earth that would block almost all sunlight, hence lowering temps.. Water is the thermostat , and a damned good one.

  12. Gordon March 25, 2013 at 6:52 am #

    So this is where members of the denial religion hang out :)

  13. Vic Pfitzner April 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    A good site with intelligent contributors. I agree that water is the thermostat. The warmers don’t even factor in latent heat of vaporization and furthermore how can you get facts from a computer when many of the inputs regarding cloud cover in the day or cloud cover at night are unpredictable? Rubbish in rubbish out.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority