Adam Ulanicki Some say you will love me one day And I will…
Bonnie Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Bonnie "Prince" Billy/Tortoise Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Bos Taurus On your way to bring me down In the fray you…
Darci You say these nights Got you feeling some way You say, I…
Felix Jaehn Some say you will love me one day And I will…
Gordon Tebo Some say that paying the ultimate price is dying I say…
Isadar I know it And I need it You've got it Butchya' never gonna…
j4ymoment Some say love heals all And some pray to the one…
Kristian Leontiou No more trouble in my soul No more time to make…
L.J.P Some say love heals all And some pray to the one…
Leontiou Kristian No more trouble in my soul No more time to make…
Los Lobos Who will clothe the children When there's no shoes on…
Loser I dunno how you feel today You weren't around, but you…
lost masters You've got your sights set on me, babe But that's a…
Melanie Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
MELANIE? Some say I got devil Some say I got angel But I'm…
Miss Jess Some say we shouldn't be out here rockin' the world Some…
MoeLogo Pretty Jay Oluwa I'm a winner oh ay Oh na na na…
Moral Crux I talked with you a day ago Poetry and blood dripped…
Nea Some say you will love me one day And I will…
NEA! Hmm, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah I will find the time, we…
Nina S. Some say that I don’t care Some say it’s never fair Some…
Rascal Flatts There's that star, the one they said we'd never reach And…
Ravenous Now we are alone Your heart beats like a drum Your…
Solardrive I came up hit the ground chase the dirt hear the sound in…
Solardrive (Feat. TC) I came up hit the ground chase the dirt hear…
Sum 41 Some say we're never meant to grow up I'm sure they…
Tortoise & Bonnie Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise & Bonnie "Prince" Billy Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise & Bonnie 'Prince' Billy Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise & Bonnie \"Prince\" Billy Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise & Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise w/ Bonnie "Prince" Billy Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Tortoise/Bonnie Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
Will Oldham/Tortoise Some say I got devil Some say I got angel…
[Happy Live Surprise ] - Sum 41 Some say we're never meant to grow up I'm sure they…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Most interesting comment from YouTube:

@NoctambulantJoycean

6y↑5

@potholer54

From 4:49 to 7:44, you discuss the Associated Press giving statisticians temperature trend data, while not letting the statisticians know what the data was about. The statisticians said they found no true temperature declines over the time-period in question. That's in line with what mainstream climate science notes, and in contradiction to what contrarians like Monckton say about Earth cooling.

I wanted to make a few points that build on this, in case you wanted some further sources on people's distorting climate trends:

First, published studies also show that when one shows people climate-related trends, while blinding to them to the fact that the trends are climate-related, people give answers that match the evidence-based scientific consensus and contradict contrarian/denialist claims. This holds both for experts and non-experts. See, for example:

#1: "A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data"
#2: "Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue"

Second, many non-experts display endpoint bias when they say global warming stopped, ice melt recently paused, etc. This means they act as if a non-statistically-significant, short-term fluctuation rebuts a long-term, statistically significant trend. You've made a similar point in other videos, and below is a paper illustrating this point:

#3: "Overcoming endpoint bias in climate change communication: The case of Arctic sea ice trends"

Third, people display endpoint bias, and other psychological biases / fallacious reasoning, in a politically-skewed way. For example, political liberals and conservatives perform mathematical analysis at about the same rate of accuracy, when the topic of analysis is politically-neutral. But when the topic is something politically-relevant, people are more likely to reach the wrong answer, if getting the right answer would be politically inconvenient for them or undermine their cultural identity. Hence political conservatives being more likely to distort climate-related trends; they find the right answer to be ideologically-inconvenient and inconvenient for the group identity they hold to. Paper #3 illustrated that in its control conditions, as do the sources below:

#4: "Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government"
#5: "Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends"

The climate scientist Andrew Dessler has a helpful discussion of paper #4 in the video below:

Youtube, Andrew Dessler's "The physics of climate change" from 37:54 to 44:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCF4vOgQyDE&feature=youtu.be&t=2274s

Fourth, contrarians/denialists thus engage in motivated reasoning. More specifically, they engage in ideologically-motivated special pleading, where they, for no epistemically rational reason, reason about climate science differently then they would other scientific topics. One can counter-act this special pleading that by using an analogy to compare their climate science reasoning to their reasoning in other topics (paper #3), and by reducing partisan communication that might cause them to reason in a fallacious, politically-motivated manner (paper #5). Of course, special pleading about science doesn't just occur in climate science; people can apply it to other scientific topics as well, as shown in paper #4 and in:

#6: "Hasty generalization, survival bias, special pleading, and burden of proof"

All comments from YouTube:

@ZerakTul

14y↑16

Professionalism like this in journalism is tragically rare. Thank you for spending all this time on making these videos!

@MnMrMustard

14y↑23

potholer54... Thank you... thank you, thank you, thank you for everything you have done and are doing. I can't express this enough. This is truly how every piece of journalism or report should be done and I applaud you for spending the hours you do on researching, recording, and editing these videos.

@terrywright9765

3y↑4

This is what you get when you pay someone to tell a captive audience what they want and expect to hear .. thank you for doing this Peter

@Equiinox1989

8y↑3

Monckton's lovely gaze and sound arguments exhibit the exemplary qualities of what centuries of inbreeding among the British peerage can produce. Well done lads.

@theeniwetoksymphonyorchest7580

2y↑3

Watching this in 2023, it’s even clearer which way global warming is going.

@thomasgill223

9y↑55

I have to admit I had been taken in by the venerableLord Monkton, in part by his self-assured presentation style and accent. This video does a great job debunking him, and I will try, as Who says, we won't get fooled again.

@June28July

Very wise decision.

@fedos

8y↑3

Who says that?

@MoonlightDoveOfAgony

The Who, it's a song.

@fedos

8y↑2

Who wrote it?

@loungelizard836

8y↑2

Yes.

1 More Replies...

@MuckyMcPuppy

14y↑7

Great job, again! I'm sure I speak for many subscribers in thanking you for all the research and hard work you put into these videos. Cheers!

@gyssedk

8y↑85

I am impressed that the word "liar" is not used, eventhough it is obvious that Mr Monckton is just that. fabricated credentials, fabricated claims and refusing to openly debate his claims are the hallmarks of a pathological liar. It appears that his only way of claiming fame is peddling his lies around in front of a gullible audience for his own gain.

@TheGodlessGuitarist

He's what used to be called a 'romancer'

@boogathon

6y↑2

And yet... you choose to believe what an anonymous YouTube artiste says, instead?
This whole video is nothing more or less than a giant ad hominem attack. Mr. P desperately avoids discussing any science with Lord M. The reason is crystal clear: Lord M would rip Mr. P to shreds if Mr. P dared to challenge him on the science.
Isn't it fun attacking someone personally? That way you don't have to try to be credible at all. Good thing, too...

@boogathon

6y↑1

@@adriennenonami1709 Correctomundo, compadre. However, he doesn't have enough self confidence to engage in a debate over the repeatedly falsified claim that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Maybe because he knows it's not...

...Oh, I see. You were writing about Lord M, not Mr. Pothole.
My bad.

@sodalitia

6y↑4

I would go even further and make an educated assertion, that he is not only a liar. He is a liar payed by Exon. One does not simply go around and lie, if there is nothing to gain. Money fits the motive.

@boogathon

6y↑1

@@sodalitia
Anyone who buys into AD HOMINEM attacks is being manipulated. None of you are capable of supporting your belief in the "carbon" bogey man, so it's all ad-hom, all the time. I'm happy to discuss facts, predictions and observations, but you want to attack an individual ( ad hominem ) because you don't like his conclusions.

21 More Replies...

@andy-the-gardener

11y↑85

great debunking of the great charlatan/ snake oil salesman monkton. your clinical and non judgmental approach is highly effective. we can leave history to judge him and his type.

@VCVTV

11y↑5

History is proving Monckton correct as global temperatures continue to flat line and alarmists scurry like cockroaches from the light.

@Beelzeboogie

11y↑22

VCVTV
Well yes, it's a flat line if you use 1998 as your starting point, but of course, nobody would be so unscientific as to pick an arbitrary date like that when modelling long term atmospheric temperature changes, would they?

@VCVTV

11y↑6

Beelzeboogie This is very thin gruel indeed by a journo-hack #warmist #alarmist apologist. It does not address the extremely powerful long-term record (talk about picking timelines to prove a predetermined outcome) that clearly show the world has gone through six warming cycles since the end of the last great ice age, and that the current warm period has not equalled any of them in length or intensity, and all indications are that we are on the downslope of warming now.Or that #CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. Man made CO2 is an extremely tiny component of all greenhouse gases. For it to have any effect on warming requires positive climate feedback sensitivity in a range that just hasn't been observed. Additionally, there is a saturation point after which increases in CO2 cease to cause any warming-the negative logarithmic relationship. So this journo, well paid for the hatchet job he's undertaken has dually been overtaken by continuing lack of warming and his abyssmal ignorance of CO2 science.

@norml.hugh-mann

4mutinyofpreverts2 the creationists attack.....look out for torches and pitchforks

@skorpian1029

andy765gtr it’s like a magic trick he tells you he’s gonna trick you even says how yet still the audience is surprised.

12 More Replies...

@papasitoman

14y↑2

One of my fav channels! I am not a climate scientist but I am a Prof and the most important thing is to teach-not preach. Your videos always also cite sources and explain why and how people are wrong without taking sides. That is a breath of fresh air and we love they way you pwn others using that dry, British humour. I also respect how you make videos of corrections when small errors are pointed out-the sign of a gentleman Cheers, Papa

@marcoguitarsolo

9y↑34

THANK YOU potholer54 for these videos - seeing how facts can be misinterpreted is really helpful in understanding the science.

@boogathon

6y↑1

And no one misinterprets the facts better than Potholer.

@Robert-tl2vg

5y↑5

Mogumbo Gono explain?
He is articulate and shows how he reaches his conclusions.
Again, like all conspiracy theorists you start from your conclusion and work backwards.

@boogathon

3y↑1

@@Robert-tl2vg I'm a conspiracy theorist? Who knew?

@RobertCampsall

48w

@@boogathon I don't know if you're a conspiracy theorist, but you certainly appear to be a liar.

@shadeburst

12y↑1

It's called Graves' Disease. I think Monckton deserves credit for appearing in public despite this disfigurement. I know that I would hide away. Brilliant singer/songwriter Toni Childs's career was ruined by Graves' Disease.

@TolpuddleMartyr

13y↑3

Amazing. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into making these videos. It's extremely helpful having this information at our disposal.

@boogathon

@Tolpuddle the Martyr: How is this information extremely helpful? I'm curious, that's all.
One quality of martyrs has always fascinated me: they'll die to be right.
Does that make them right...?

@Kranioklast

7y↑16

I love this style to let people debunk themselves

@boogathon

Yes, Potholer does a fine job of that, doesn't he?

@seandavidson9988

10y↑21

This is excellent. That's all I'd like to say, really.

@Ian_sothejokeworks

4y↑2

Wait... At 4:08, he says, "We've had NINE YEARS of cooling since the first of January, 2001." The caption says February, 2009. Does he think 8 years and 1 month rounds to 9 years?

@ashoakwillow

6y↑7

Wonderful that you stay so cool and measured in the face of industrial scale misinformation from big oil and coal.

@aratasman77

1y↑1

@potholder54 did you know that your "Monckton Bunkum" series are mentioned in our good Lord's wikipedia? I had a hearty chuckle!

@fighton25

8y↑8

Molyneux hosted a Monckton interview and all of his followers are thoughtlessly eating it up. This video should help.

@T33K3SS3LCH3N

6y↑2

I am sort of curious just what a disaster that interview must have been...

@boogathon

6y↑1

@@T33K3SS3LCH3N It wasn't a disaster at all. Do a search and watch it. You will find one giant difference: Lord M discusses science. Here, know-nothings discuss Lord M...

@Marniwheeler

5y↑1

@@boogathon Are you suggested Monckton is not to be trusted?

Because I just saw Monckton debunk all of Moncktons main points.

I think Monckton is a lot more trustworthy than Monckton.

@boogathon

@@Marniwheeler No science, huh? I guess it's more fun poisoning the well.

Carry on, hater.

@sphynxalive

12y↑1

"Also, notice that Potholer provides his sources much more clearly and accurately than does Monckton." The body of Monkton's research is not presented by Potholer here so why are you drawing such an unfair comparison? Obviously Potholer selectively chose which or Monkton's arguments we wanted to attempt at refuting.

@flailios

8y↑11

Would the real Chris Monckton please stand up?

@boogathon

6y↑1

At least he doesn't hide behind an anonymous screen name...

@boogathon

6y↑1

@nom deplumeone and why would he say it if you could prove it wasn't true? Because your baseless assertion proves nothing.

@boogathon

@nom deplumeone NONE of that "debunks" science, which Monckton highlights. The ONLY response you or this pot hole can post are AD HOMINEM attacks. Says it all, really.

@boogathon

@nom deplumeone I highlighted nothing. Apparently someone else (like the blog owner) decided it was worth highlighting. Sorry that got you spun up.

Carry on.

@MAMarlize

5y↑1

@@boogathon his name is
Peter Hadfield.
i wouldn't say that he's anonymous considering how easy it was to find his name.

1 More Replies...

@potholer54

13y

=that means since 1942 to year 1990 250ft of snow fell on greenland= But this is well known. I even quoted the Johannessen paper which showed ice accumulation in the interior highlands of Greenland. Why do you think this contradicts climate theory? Precipitation falls as ice (snow) in cold climates, and unless it thaws then it accumulates. What matters is whether this accumulation in the interior is more or less than the ablation (melting) at the edges. Turns out it's less.

@rugbyguy59

11y↑11

Only a guy who's psycho for pigeons would think the hockey stick was discredited.

@VCVTV

11y↑2

Or the #IPCC, who never refer to it any more...

@rugbyguy59

11y↑10

VCVTV LOL, the IPCC have MBH98/99 on their spaggetti graph. It's no longer the only one and more complete data sets now, as they should, get more attention, MBH was the first real N. Hemisphere reconstruction. Yet despite that none of the other reconstructions contradict MBH's original. They all fit within each other's margins of errors. The conclusions of MBH98/99 are still robust.

@VCVTV

11y

More like bust. The Medieval Warm Period just "disappears"?

@rugbyguy59

11y↑10

VCVTV The MWP was postulated based on data from a small area of the planet. The Lamb schematic, which pseudo-skeptics like to cite, was not created solely from data like later reconstructions but partly from anecdotal evidence and is mainly a graph of the North Atlantic region. When the MBH 98/99 reconstruction came on the scene it was the first data based reconstruction and it covered the entire Northern Hemisphere. And when they did that the MWP as a hemispheric phenomenon disappeared. That doesn't mean Lamb was wrong but his graph is not hemispheric. Later reconstructions, such as Moberg 2005, have had even more data and a small MWP is present. MBH98/99 was an excellent first go. It isn't the focus because there are more detailed studies now. However none of the new reconstructions are inconsistent with Mann's original.

BTW, a big MWP would mean the climate is more sensitive than we think. That wouldn't be a good thing.

@VCVTV

10y↑1

All they did was discard the tree ring data that blew their hypothesis out of the water and duct-taped temperature data to it that fit their narrative. Completely bogus. The "hockey stick" is thoroughly discredited and your support of it acts to discredit you as well.

64 More Replies...

@potholer54

14y

@notonewhit - =I thought 'ablation' was more at calving of icebergs.= That's right, but I was trying to put what Johannessen wrote into plain English. Apart from direct melting of the ice sheet itself, what tends to happen is that the ice sheet moves towards the sea and chunks of it break away, then become icebergs. These eventually melt to, so it all comes down to melting in the end.

@foley-huck

2y↑3

@ 11:32 Ola Johannessen is Norwegian, not Danish. As much as Monckton might make out that he has intimate knowledge of Johannessen's character and work by referring to him as 'very diligent', thus making himself seem more knowledgeable and trustworthy, it seems like he didn't even bother to find out where the guy is from. Maybe he saw the '-sen' suffix and guessed, who knows.

A small thing perhaps, and I know that Potholer doesn't like to ascribe dishonesty or any nefarious motivations on behalf of those he debunks, but I find Monckton's pretentiousness as bothersome as his misrepresentations of the science; without people being convinced by the former, he wouldn't be given the time of day to dispense with the latter.

@jay762360

13y↑1

This is not just something we are going to try, this is a conserted effort to seperate us from the rest of our wealth. Once done, we will be powerless to the people of power. I for one, would really never want to find out what it's like to ride in a boxcar with a hundred other people.

@vaiyt

18w

Capitalism is already doing a bang up job of doing that.

@MoonlightDoveOfAgony

9y↑7

Hey potty. I was watching the history channel recently. And i was surprised to see the show Conspiracy Theories featuring Jesse Ventura still on the channel. Sure enough Lord Christopher Shit head was there, and he was talking about a climate change document that somebody had apparently changed to suit an agenda. The name of the person who;s job it was that changed the climate papers i forgot but it appears to be a rather new episode of Conspiracy Theories. I will try to find the episode so i can show you. But i have a feeling you may have already seen it. Any how, they are back at it again, the whole bullshit investigation team back at it. They just won't stop.

@calvinsylveste8474

Must have been a rerun of an old episode, that show was canceled 4 years ago

@flailios

Christopher Hitchens I wonder if it breaches the telecommunications code of practice under a technicality.

@potholer54

14y

@Kawabunga02 =Prediction in the '80's: not 1 tree left alive in europe by the year 2000. = Sounds like a great one for me to follow up on. Who wrote this? Please cite the title of the paper and the year of publication. And if you have them, author and name of journal. I don't remember this scientific study, but I'm sure you didn't just make it up.

@alexjaybrady

8y↑3

Please please give Charley Brooker a call, Id love to see your stuff on his Newswipe program

@vidfreak56

13y↑1

From this we learn that sheeple would rather hear what they want to be true than actually look up the facts themselves and see the truth. Ah the politics of science!

@danacollins2625

4y↑5

"...what does it matter if he isn't a scientist, he was never Margaret Thatcher's science advisor, and has never published a scientific paper...?"

It matters because it shows that he is willing to be deliberately dishonest right from the start, before he even begins to "'correctly [present] data and inferences from the scientific literature'".

@shadeburst

12y↑1

Hi Peter, in court your tactic is often used with some success. You show that your opponent's argument has errors and that therefore your own argument, no matter how improbable, must be correct. Nonetheless I've downloaded a good 25-plus of your videos because I believe in knowledge and there's always the hope that I'll learn something new from climate change proponents that will change my mind.

@nomercy3309

9y↑30

Monckton has always been a liar.

@boogathon

6y↑1

NoMercy, you're lying...

@duffeknol

14y↑1

As a Monckton believer, I'll have to agree with you on a lot of points in this video. Monckton himself claims in his speech at St Paul that no one should ever just take someone's word for it, not even his. Blind followers are never a good thing.

@NoctambulantJoycean

8y↑13

Monckton's claims on Arctic sea ice (see 7:44 to 14:25) are a classic case "end-point bias", where he tries to avoid long-term trends by cherry-picking short-term fluctuations. It's quite sad, and discussed further here:

"Unusually cold winters, a slowing in upward global temperatures, or an increase in Arctic sea ice extent are often falsely cast as here-and-now disconfirmation of the scientific consensus on climate change. Such conclusions are examples of “end point bias,” the well documented psychological tendency to interpret a recent short-term fluctuation as a reversal of a long-term trend. End point bias poses a challenge to those trying to communicate cross-decade climate warming trends. In this study, we demonstrate that exposure to misleading scientific information on FoxNews.com that evokes end point bias can affect the beliefs of liberals and moderates as well as conservatives."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1241814?scroll=top&needAccess=true

There are even memes debunking this sort of end-point bias:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif

@cynicalpenguin

6y↑3

@NPC Chief Programmer Shlomo Infantdickstein I assume youve now watched potholer's recent responses to Tony Heller?

@boogathon

@@cynicalpenguin Yeah, it's just a lot of cherry-picked ad hominem attacks.
Just like this video.

@cynicalpenguin

@@boogathon lol

@boogathon

@@cynicalpenguin lol back atcha.

@dnboro

Hi, hope you are well in this crazy world.
Just wondering if I can pick your brain on an idea. Sorry unrelated to this thread but just found any old post to get your attention if I may.
Often when challenging the views of climate change deniers, there is a need to be able to provide something simple enough that it is intuitive and undeniable to break through. Whilst the laws of thermodynamics are perfectly at peace with the impact of back radiation, many just can't get their head around it, mainly where radiant energy from a cooler object to a warmer object must be included when calculating out NETT energy transfer - and I understand why people struggle with this as it is intuitive to some but counter-intuitive to others. Whilst arguing with a proponent of the Jo Postma gravity hypothesis I thought the following thought experiment might be a good way of breaking through? I would appreciate your thoughts. Am I missing something?
The outgoing spectrum at the TOA has deep troughs at wavelengths that line up with the GHG absorption wavelengths. This is observed and cannot be disputed. But hypothetically, if you could magically click your fingers and turn off the ability for those gases to absorb these wavelengths, then instantly the energy balance would change - the same (i.e.solar) energy into the atmosphere and the planet, but much more energy suddenly radiating out to space as the spectral troughs disappear. Now suddenly there is an energy imbalance and there is only one logical conclusion - rapid cooling.
Surely this thought experiment is intuitive, easy to comprehend and demonstrates that GHG's must be holding the temperature much higher than it otherwise would be without them. (And for the Jo Postma fans, gravity didn't change either :-)
If you have time, let me know what you think.

@OddityDK

Monckton: There’s no long term loss of ice, because of the ice melted during the summer, NEARLY all came back during the winter.

So.. in other words. Ice was lost?

That’s a pretty impressive level of fail right there.

@MrSporkster

14y↑3

Cracking video. I heard that bitchslap all the way from Adelaide. :D

@potholer54

13y

@Ruwentos -- Ask Mr. Monckton himself for a public debate. As Jesse2K12 says, I have done just that. Monckton has responded to my videos on WUWT and I responded to him on the same page. Monckton is now preparing his reply. As long as WUWT is amenable to hosting this debate for as long as it takes Monckton to address my points (so far he hasn't), I see no reason why we can't resolve the issue of whether or not he misread his sources.

@gerrybaggins

8y↑4

i just discovered your channel. you, Sir, are precious. Thank you.

@potholer54

14y

@bassbus2 =I'm intrigued about the Fawset and Jones quote in this video= As I said in the video, climatologists don't look at individual years over short periods of time. They take moving averages over long periods of time to eliminate these annual fluctuations. See also my video "Climate Change -- Is the Earth Cooling?"

@MaxAtLarge

6y↑2

When people are paid to advocate certain views (climate denial), they are not going to be open to new information. This is extremely dishonest on Monckton's part and I appreciate your tracking down his lack of sources!

@movieklump

14y

Thank you, what you are doing is an valuable service.

@stefjonesee6180

9y↑5

i like his pretend graphs

@sirlew1951

12y↑1

He states facts with references and asks people to verify them for themselves. ie he tells people to be sceptical. Unlike the AGW alarmists who demand that you believe what you are told to believe and are outraged if you dare to question their unproven pronouncements.

@NoctambulantJoycean

6y↑5

@denisdaly1708

6y↑1

Good points. My only comment is that Jost and Krulick (2015) examined motivated bias along political lines. When they reviewed meta analyses and other studies, they found assymetries, where conservatives engaged more in motivated reasoning, and to greater degrees. This has to do with conservatives scoring lower on a personality trait called openness to experience. Scoring high on this trait is associated with checking with reality and metacognitive skills. This in turn has to do with differences in a brain area called the ACC. People who have more Gray matter in this area, pay more attention to reality, and checking that their understanding matches reality. Conservatives have less Gray matter in this area. So, on the whole, they find science difficult. Indeed, one neuroscientist showed that she could predict political affiliation to an accuracy of 72.6%, just by looking at two parts of a brain scan.
Conservatives tend to have more Gray matter in the amygdala, that is associated with fear. Conservatives have a negativity bias. They fear more. One way to alleviate fear, is to wish it away, deny threats, and look for threats elsewhere, out groups and minorities, gays, immigrants, other ethnic groups and females. And sure enough, beimg conservative is a strong predictor of prejudice (Hodson and Dhont, 2015), found in various meta analyses.

So yes, overally your points are well made. However, there is a difference between liberals and conservatives.

@NoctambulantJoycean

@Denis Daly

"So yes, overally your points are well made. However, there is a difference between liberals and conservatives."

Yes, you're right that there are, on average differences between conservatives and liberals on this. I've read some of the literature on assymetries in science denialism between the two groups, but didn't cite it here. We can go over that, if need be.

Thanks for the citations, but I'm having trouble tracking them down. Could you please given their titles, links to them, or their DOI number. Thank you.

@boogathon

@@denisdaly1708 so you're an anomaly. Do tell.

@Pfhreak

4y↑1

Ten years ago today I made a post on Facebook showing Monckton and late Argentine president Néstor Kirchner side-by-side because I realized they're spitting images of each other while watching this video series. (I lived in Argentina at the time.) Today the memories algorithm picked that post, I realized almost nothing has changed, and now I'm depressed.

(Also, figures those troglodytes in The Sutherland Institute would bring Monckton in to do a presentation.)

@user-sb3wh3dd4v

6y↑2

# Monckton the mendacious mountebank.

@potholer54

13y

I'm sorting out the Climate Change playlist because not all the videos have been put into the playlist and the numbering is wrong. I spent more time making the vids than I do sorting them out.

@w8m4n

5y↑3

It looks like Rodney Dangerfield crossed with Nigel Farage

@JohannesWiberg

14y

You're too good for YouTube On the other hand, I'm mighty glad you're here.

@Alberturkey54

11y↑4

It doesn't makes sense for Monckton to have been science adviser to Thatcher - she was a climate change proponent wasn't she? Really progressive on the issue?

@VCVTV

10y

Alberturkey54 Yes. He alerted her to the potential problems that were being discussed around man made emissions. At first he was also on the bandwagon, but long ago jumped off when he realized how spectacularly misguided the whole global warming/climate change movement was.

@Alberturkey54

10y↑5

What are you're thoughts on climate change. IMHO Its not that misguided. Maybe people exaggerate the consequences of climate change, but its definitely happening, at a fast rate.

@loungelizard836

10y

Yes, and if you watch the whole video, you will see that she never used him as a science advisor... at least not from the view of her autobiography.
If he was important, you would think she would have mentioned him.
I think he's just an opportunist, and that doesn't make for a good advisor.

@notyourdamnbusiness8795

10y

Alberturkey54 she was a freaking scientist.

@stuartpatterson1617

Thatcher wanted to promote nuclear power so she massively increased funding into research that specifically pointed to climate change. The whole thing has snowballed since then.

2 More Replies...

@MerchantGhost

12y↑1

He does make the primary focus as refuting his claims. The jokes are in there for comedic value. It's how he makes his videos. Potholer knows very well that his joking about Monckton himself is irrelevant. Perhaps he thinks making a video that complies to your standards would be boring.

@Cyelon

14y↑1

Great video, spot on as usual!

@boogathon

Thanx for your, ummm-mm opinion.
Carry on.

@potholer54

14y

@BlueRonin44 =We see climate change on other planets as well.= I address this in a previous video. Mars and Pluto have been warming, Uranus has been cooling. The reasons for the warming are fairly well understood. I don't know how you think this changes our understanding of the effect of CO2 on climate, which is also fairly well understood. But if you can message me with an explanation and perhaps some references I am always willing to learn. Thanks.

@DAILEYericCaryUSA

14y

Very good work. My eyes are now opened.

@brianmorris3290

5y↑1

"I have a theory regarding Brontosauruseses. Brontosauruseses start out very small in front, getting very big in the middle, and are again very small in the back."

@whenthemusicsover6028

5y↑1

Well, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head.

@robhoneycutt

14y

@CHIPSTERO7 And... "The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromel- alumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the mid- infrared region."

@potholer54

13y

@Ruwentos =Even hard liner Alarmists admitted that the temperature has decreased = I'm not really that bothered with what hard-line alarmists claim, unless it's such crap that it needs to be debunked on this channel. However, if you can cite a scientific paper that shows average global temperature has decreased over the last ten years then I would like to check it out. Could you send me the title, the name of the publication and the author? Thanks.

@martysaysso

14y

Yeessss...been waiting for this. Thanks Potholer.

@Stupidityindex

12y↑1

I have just seen this video and realized Rush Limbaugh and his like will never view it. Cool.

@sphynxalive

12y↑1

When someone must resort to argument from authority you know that there is little factual or empirical evidence to support their argument. This is the point. Regardless of what qualifications a person has, odes not have or lies about the substantial argument should be the only thing a REAL scientist should be concerned about. That is my point.

@potholer54

13y

=I bet your not going to attack lord monckton on solutions to this supposed problem of global warming= No, I have no problem with Monckton's opinion. He's a politician and is entirely welcome to it. I am just correcting all his errors so that his opinion, and that of his supporters, is based on science fact, not science fiction. If you think any of my corrections are wrong, or if you think Monckton managed to get any of the science right, please point it out.

@sphynxalive

12y↑1

"Exactly how many of those scientists were climatologists?" Apparently around 8500 of the 20,000 who signed the petition were PhDs in various fields of science. Not sure how many were climatologists but you can check. Even so science isn't done by consensus like I said.

@neils123

14y

Thank you so much for this. I always learn so much from your videos.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@541ceman If I understand correctly you are saying that the radiative forcing required to switch the climate between ice-ages and interglacials which is a temperature shift of 5C requires 2.8W/sq.m. Do I have that right? However a radiative forcing increment of 2.8W/sq.m gives us a maximum theoretical surface-temperature increase of 2.5C if we use the IPCC's own equation for climate-sensitivity (which has only been assumed on theoretical grounds). That leaves 2.5C to be accounted for by the MC.

@shadeburst

12y

Dear newdimensionfilms, thank you for replying. Your powerful logic has enabled me to see that I am completely wrong and you are completely right. In particular I am delighted that you have responded to my polite use of the word "proponent" in preference to needlessly emotive names that others use, by showing me similar respect. Have a good day.

@jannetteberends8730

2y↑1

Time series should become a subject in high school math. To better understand the world.

@potholer54

12y↑1

=Al gore is no scientist either. What say you to that?= I say Al Gore is no scientist either. You'll find Al Gore's mistakes and exaggerations in three of the videos in my climate change series.

@Empedocles449

7y↑1

I had never heard the word 'bunkum' before I started listening to potholer54. I didn't actually realise it was a real word till the other day when I was reading an Agatha Christie book. Blew my mind, a little.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@robhonycutt Another observation that I have made is that Evans' calculated radiative forcing on the surface from all anthropogenic atmospheric constituents amounts to 2.55W/sq.m. However the IPCC (in AR4 2007) estimate that the surface radiative forcing from all anthropogenic constituents amounts to 1.6W/sq.m. Which one is closer to reality? Regardless though, a radiative amplification of 2.55W/sq.m does not seem anything to worry about to me as it only produces a temperature increase of 0.47C.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@541iceman I am asking a simple, straightforward question: What is the RF produced by the Milankovitch cycle during interglacials? Could you give a simple, straightforward answer please?

@scionofdorn9101

3y↑1

If you're going to set out claiming some professional authority on a subject, Monckton, it helps to not be lying about your credentials and background.

@potholer54

13y

=we have seen the lies the distortions= But vmgqie, you were the one who cited Solanki as proof that the sun is responsible for recent warming. So your argument about "lies and distortions" seems to be based on a misunderstanding of basic math.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee According to Wikipedia it does matter whether the earth is a perfect blackbody: "However, the result does not change if the Earth is a grey body rather than a black body because any change in both the absorption and the emission will cancel each-other out". Also, when I say "linear-relationship" I'm referring to the fixed relationship between RF and temperature that the equation implies (i.e. the IPCC's logarithmic equation implies a linear relationship of 0.3C per every 1W/sq.m).

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee As far as I can see the extract of which you quoted from Harris does not contain any information about a specific deficit on CO2 absorption-wavelengths. What is the deficit then? 0.8W/sq.m? That is a figure I have often heard from people who cite that paper, but I do not know. Even if it was 0.8W/sq.m that would only increase the surface-temperature by 0.15C if we apply the Stefann-Boltzmann law. Also Harris' paper exists behind a pay-wall (and I'm not keen on paying to read it).

@Htrac

14y

You are a legend for these videos, thanks a lot.

@vmgqie

13y↑1

I'm glad to hear it, now now, don't pout, you will find someone else to brain wash, time will heal all wounds. We can still be friends, it was me, not you ok

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee The C13/C12 ratio is in fact decreasing, not increasing. Anthropogenic CO2 is enriched in C12, depleted in C13 and has essentially no C14 so an increase would decrease the C13/C12 ratio. An out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans is consistent with a decrease in the C13/C12 ratio because the CO2 could originate from phytoplankton decay which has the same isotope frequency. In any case, didn't you theorise that anthropogenic CO2 is swapped by CO2 in the oceans once absorbed after 5 years?

@BensinTurbin

13y↑1

It is an impressive amount of research you put into these videos. I would have liked to know more about who made these videos and how much time you have spent putting this together !

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveee And what methodology did the IPCC employ to measure this radiative forcing? It is derived from the MODTRAN computer-code which is owned by the US air-force which is not open to the public. In other words we do not know if they have measured it instrumentally and if it is the result of direct-observation or not. Nevertheless assuming that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic the IPCC's equation gives us 1.97W/sq.m to date (the equation seems to be 1W/sq.m for every 0.3C).

@sphynxalive

12y↑1

" Attacking his claims by pointing out that his evidence is faulty, misread, or misrepresented. Including picking start and end dates selectively to hide the overall trend, misrepresenting the conclusions of papers, etc." The maker of this video has done precisely what he is accusing Monkton of doing...special pleading and misrepresenting data. You can always find people who agree with your point. But proving it using the actual data and not someone else's interpretation of it is different.

@boogathon

Yes, and furthermore, skeptics of the manmade global warming conjecture have nothing to prove. The onus is on those who say it's real, but they avoid that argument like Dracula avoids the dawn.

This video was made by wimpy kid who is older now, and good at propaganda: Monckton reminds Potholer of a kid who rubbed Potty's nose in the schoolyard sandbox. Now he's trying to get even, but he's no different morally from his target.

The motivation for this video is hatred and envy. Those are powerful motivators, no?

Yes.

@robhoneycutt

14y

@CHIPSTERO7 I also have to ask, do you understand that HITRAN is NOT a model? It's merely a database, something akin to the human genome project for molecular spectroscopics.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@robhoneycutt Upon reading the paper again in more detail I come across this: "In order to extract the greenhouse flux from individual gases, the background emission of the atmosphere was simulated using the radiative transfer code, FASCOD3". More computers. I still see no valid empirical measurement of CO2's radiative-imbalance in Evans' paper. Nevertheless, I gather that the IPCC's total RF comes to only 1.6W/sq.m (as of 2007) which is only enough to increase the surface temperature by 0.3C.

@GuitarNoob101

13y

Potholer, Wonderful series. One comment: in your playlist, "Climate Change", the playlist jumps from "11a. Sources for my last video" straight to this video, #15. Videos #13 and #14 are available in your channel but are not in your climate change playlist. Video #12 is in the playlist, but out of order, and both #11 and #12 are duplicated near the end. Thanks for all of the great work, and for providing a great model for how to approach science and myth debunking. Best, ~Alex

@kensington25

14y

Brilliant video and great points :)

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee The IPCC report is from 2007. Since that time the CO2 has increased. According to the IPCC's own equation increments of RF convert to temperature-increases at the rate of 0.3C per 1W/sq.m. The IPCC assert that a doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial baseline will produce 1.2C of warming which works out at 3.7W/sq.m. Thus approximately 0.3C per 1W/sq.m. We can also calculate how much RF every 1ppmv of CO2 would have by 540ppmv and then dividing it my 3.7W/sq.m which gives us 0.0068.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee The IPCC have another equation for feedbacks separate from their equation for only CO2. Which is: deltaT = 0.75xRFOC. Where deltaT stands for temperature-increase, RF stands for radiative-forcing, and OC stands for degrees Celsius.

@MrSyrett

14y

Another excellent video! I hope you never stop making posting on youtube

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@robhoneyutt Sorry, but I still don't see any definitive empirical evidence for the radiative forcing from CO2 in Evans's paper. He states that "The line transition parameters for the molecules were provided from the 1992 AFGL HITRAN database". HITRAN is a radiative-transfer model that predicts the radiative forcing characteristics of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Evans is not just merely referencing HITRAN; he is saying that the radiative forcing characteristics he used were provided by HITRAN.

@robhoneycutt

14y

@CHIPSTERO7 Especially note this statement: "A comparison with simulated fluxes predicted by the FASCOD3 atmospheric transmission code (Clough et al., 1988) for the actual atmospheric conditions and recent atmospheric gas concentrations (Kaye et al., 1994; IPCC, 1995) is shown in the last column of Table 2. In general, there is a good correlation between the measured and simulated radiative fluxes implying that the FASCOD3 radiation code is very reliable."

@ebm93nor

The thing that is weirdest for me is that the "cooling" is in an IPCC report... Why would they include that?

@minibrownliger

6y↑4

What cooling are you talking about? Do you know which IPCC report and which page/chapter it's in? I'm interested in learning more about it, but I don't want to read the entire report (or multiple reports).

@ebm93nor

@@minibrownliger the period between 1998 and the 2010s,i have been refered to it several times but cant for the life of me find it...

The weird part is that it is not true, there was no cooling or hiatus and yet it is included in a rapport. I think it was the fith one if you want to look for yourself.

@ebm93nor

6y↑1

@Tony Wilson Thanks for the reply, i understand that the warming effect of CO2 is not a straight line, that is not what i am talking about.

As far as i understand it, there was one dataset that caused the infamous "pause" in the warming but this was as far as i understand not present in other temperature sets and was disproven a few years later. So why would IPCC put it in their report? It just seems weird.

And just to be clear, i am not a climate change denier. I fully accept humanitys role in the warming(and frankly use way to much of my time debating climate change deniers), i just cant understand this weird choice by the IPCC.

@potholer54

14y↑1

@grantaking =This is sort of a liberal video.= Really? In what way?

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee I have heard this argument before. Why would the CO2 in the oceans swap-places with the anthropogenic CO2 that they absorb? The oceans control the amount of atmospheric CO2 according only to their temperature (and to a very small-degree through increased atmospheric-pressure arsing from increased CO2). Unless you are suggesting that the oceanic sinks cannot cope. Given the short atmospheric life-span for CO2 I see no reason as to why it would remain in the atmosphere for centuries.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@modtracje The IPCC use the following equation to calculate the feedbacks: delta T = 0.75xRFOC. Consider how the equation depicts a perfectly linear relationship between delta T and RF. It means that for regular increments of RF we would get a constant increase in temperature. However the Stefan-Boltzmann law states that regular increments of RF lead to progressively diminishing increments of temperature due to the 4th-power relationship. There appears to be a conflict with basic physics here.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@beeveemee The problem here is that you are assuming that the measured downwelling IR coming from the increased CO2-greenhouse will be more than the IR that is radiated out to space. However since CO2 re-radiates in all directions equally this cannot be the case. Even if you're correct (perhaps you are) it would be interesting to know the specific deficit on CO2's absorption-wavelengths so we can then calculate theoretically (using SB's RS-law) how much warming it would produce at the surface.

@sphynxalive

12y↑1

"You're confusing two things with ad hominem that aren't" OK you are right the attacks were not all ad hominem. Regardless of what you want to call the argument advanced by potholer the fact remains they have little if anything to do with the substance of what he is claiming. To me if there was any falsity in what Monkton was arguing for it could have been easily dismissed with FACTS refuting the evidence and logic he presents. That is not the case with him nor anyone else who disagrees.

@gyddrftggggvbhf

12y

7:44 This graph only goes up to 2007. You posted this in Feb 2011. How does the temperature trend look now? 15 or 16 years without significant warming? Also, "...and they're still moving up today" coincides with your showing the temp trend graph from the 2007 data for about 1 second. I'm sure you didn't mean to rush past this, but viewers need more time to digest what's on screen, I hope you'll agree.

@CHIPSTERO7

14y

@SexyMelon Right. Maybe it was just a typo on your part or a lapse of my memory then but I do remember you saying it. If I had your PM I would not hesitate to dig-it up. In any case, you still have not answered my question as to whether you think the warming over the 20th century is mainly anthropogenically-induced or not.

@opticalprism

14y

How do you know humans are responsible for a lift in Co2, global temps, correlation, human signal etc. Because I can't find one, in any of the peers. Where is the data you are referring to? Just the citation will do for the signal to total output ratio! Cheers.