Interesting comment. I'm new to the journey you've been on. After watching the false scientific consensus of the pandemic, it made me wonder if the same tactics were used in the climate debate. I've only recently been looking into the subject, but have seen enough to give me the impression that it's another area where debate has been shut down, dissenters are smeared for dismissal, incentives have driven the studies that get published, and censorship/self-censorship are rife. I was really interested to hear that changes in global temperature actually precede changes in atmospheric CO2. I haven't found any decent rebuttle to this claim, though I'm sure one must exist..? If you could point me to any information of debate on this particular issue I'd be most grateful. Thanks 🙏

@@gnoelalexmay indeed it is the same fraud

There may be a minimal amount of warming, quite meaningless. However there are some areas too hot at least sometimes. It would be far more cost effective to cool down only where it is hot, when it is hot, not everywhere evenly. There are better ways than reducing CO2 emissions. It would be interesting to know who is funding this climate agenda, when they are pushing it so hard. Must be big money behind. Chinese business?

And yet of the 10 hottest years in recorded history they have happened in the last 20. Next you’ll be on chemtrails turning frogs gay.

@@gnoelalexmay historically such as snowball earth you need an event such as milankovitch cycles to create the warming event, the release of CO2 is the forcing which exponentially increases the heating effects creating a cycle of ever increasing temperatures, this is well understood in science. Effectively by releasing giga tonnes of CO2 and other gases mankind has taken out the middle man and is producing the forcing effect, releasing tundra methane in viscous feedback loop which has started to occur.

I think they are beautiful. Hope you're enjoying the heatwave.

Well, the Earth "IS FLAT!" I just now looked out the window and there's nothing but Flat for miles & miles, so there!!!😢😮😅

He's not gonna suck you off just because you commented about him on youtube.

What utter Horseshit. Windmills "emit more co2 than if you didn't have them" Can't even fucking figure out what that double-negative means.

Federico Parente: yes bird and fish populations are down remarkably. The people who claim to love the environment missed an entire segment of it!

I guess you didn't experience the 49.7 deg C temperatures in BC then

​@@jimjones8736 Where? Vancouver reached 30. I presume deeper inland with less ocean breeze could be higher. 30 in Vancouver is not special, either. It reaches 28-32 every year. In 1915 it reached 32. Were humans involved with the weather back then? Highest in the past 100 years was 2009 at 34. Now, I am not the highest proponent for Coal, even though with scrubbers and other filtration has made it on-par with Natural gas for emissions, it is the mining and logistics of moving it around the world that gets me. When the new SMR nuclear system become viable, this will be the solution to global energy requirements.

@@jimjones8736 and the relevance of that is???

[] ... North American bird population has decreased by 3 billion birds. I know, house cats and high-rise buildings are a problem too. But that is not the issue here. About windmills ... the ROI is amazingly fast nowadays. Less than 5 years or so.

Saving the environment….

ohhhhh, so what? I'm sure their observations of all the dead raptors, bats, and birds is statistically significant. No, wait a fucking minute, it ISN'T. So again, so what??

this guys eyes....they are going to explode from his body....this guy is clearly overdoing, boundless

Would you want a hug from Bill gates...?

I decided not to be a fan of this odious buffoon when I saw that he was lying through his teeth virtually every time he opens his mouth.

@@mcmanustony Is he really lying?

@@jameswcollett he is a compulsive and relentless liar. “I sit in the House of Lords”- no, he doesn’t. “I was Margaret Thatchers science advisor”- no, he wasn’t. He is also no more a climate scientist than he’s a member of the Spice Girls. A pathetic, lying fantasist- nothing more.

Facts? You mean opinion? And a wrong one at that.

Oh. So Almighty God is on the side of the oil companies too?

@@nicfarrow silly boy!

He is a lying c***.

@@wimahlers Go get a booster shot and another and another....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Yeah, you're part of the courageous vanguard! If only we all were brave enough to stick our heads in the sand in our search for the truth. I guess our mistake was in listening to the climate scientists rather than trusting in "Lord" Monckton - and he's such a heavyweight in the world of science, too! Oh well, too late for me to change, guess I'll be stuck in flat earth world forever...

@@user-lo3vc4ot5g You are missing my point. Alarmists only seem to listen to the majority. Meanwhile, the minority is ignored. History has proven that sometimes the minority is correct about the matter. People who blindly follow the majority are the people sticking their heads into the ground in their search for truth. They are mere sheep following the flock. People like Lord Monckton are in search of the truth by criticising the consensus. Science needs critical thinkers. Even if they are proven wrong now or later, science needs them to prevent tunnel vision or biased science.

@@Stormfox93 You are missing the other guy's point. Monckton studied classics. He has no scientific qualifications AT ALL. He is a well spoken parrot with a good memory. Check out the Monckton debunked video.

@@jimjones8736 If it's "debunked" it must be true.

HORSESHIT "economics" Every fucking windmill on this planet MAKES MONEY.

Sodthong1: Clever. Sadly similar to the fusion power industry. However, AOC has a better basis - she is repeating the timeline to a tipping point, not the disaster itself.

Tipping point used to be 2000. I’m old enough to remember that!

that isn't what AOC said. Try to keep up and not make a fool of yourself.

@@genli5603 what do you remember? who said what and where?

Tipping point in 2000? I am old enough to remember that I did not see a single scientific reference claiming so. Please present your scientific reference saying so. Much obliged.

You should be on the stage

He is quite spectacular ,, probably the life of any party . To bad the powers that be won't / aren't listening ,, glad he's on our side !

@@edwin7126 What side? The side of stupid! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nMiHYMR529Czl4E.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hrqJZqmf2Ky-Z4U.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNZ2Z5uTm7LXkqM.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eZmXnLWSrLS4fXU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/irhzrMaludzZc6M.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7FnZ8mrs6e5oWg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z96oaMtisLSxcXU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r8uEeqWo18Waook.html Or the side of high electricity prices perhaps? www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg Or the side of constant wars for oil? Nah, the side of stupid.

"an example of why practical math matter" Here is some for you. In 1827 Jean Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2. In 1896, the first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius. In May, 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, that the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of increasing carbon dioxide: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, as we have observed over the last 50 years. So, let's look at what the actual science says. Lets first look at this from incoming light. The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% of that is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat. Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gas CO2. One of CO2's properties is it has a reactive band in the 255K range where it absorbs and releases infrared photons in Earth's black body radiation range. Once released after absorption, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.

Critique must include alternatives to mitigate general env pollution/degradation.

@John Zyp Trump did not stop it. Don't make up things out of your wild hat.

@John Zyp Either a nice attempt at a troll or (most likely) a TRUE idiot.

because it's all BS from a FF Funded liar for hire. About the only thing Lord Bunkum said was true was he's there to screw you quickly. Let's look at this untrained, non expert pharmacist's findings? There have been no direct proof that wind farms cause negative health effects there is however evidence from a nocebo effect from anti turbine activists and their lies. reneweconomy.com.au/the-nocebo-effect-and-why-its-much-more-dangerous-than-wind-turbines-80849/ Then conversely the negative effects of FF pollution are never mentioned, namely the adverse affects of AGW and death of 7-9 million people a year from FF air pollution are worse. Expensive: but less than coal and supplies cheaper electricity. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg No need for them: He starts saying because the oceans are the best guide to how much we are warming. So oceans where we don't live is more important than surface where we do live. Forgetting his mantra of "the ocean ate my warming" where he previously criticised climate scientists for claiming most of the recent warming went into the oceans and slowed surface warming. It is warming at 1 C per 450 years or 0.45C/century yet it's warmed nearly 1C/century. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900 Because for the previous 350 years there was no AGW. Fellow conman Patrick Moore, who fraudulently claimed to be the co-founder of Greenpeace, BS no warming: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/grNngpB4s6vHmoE.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pdx7qpmKz9e3loE.html His lies about the consensus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial He doesn't do campaigns....unless he's paid to and does bad maths. Then he tries to use 1 cancelled wind project to claim world mitigation of AGW is financially bad. He neglects the fact RE is cheaper than coal now and falling so you save money converting to RE. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg He neglects to look at the costs of doing nothing. FF subsidies amount to $5.3 trillion a year, so over 20 years about $106 trillion. The estimated costs of keeping temp rise to 2 C according to a Bloomberg study, $12.1 trillion over 25 years of INVESTMENT, not FF handouts. So let's say we do it in 20. That means doing nothing is about $94 trillion MORE expensive. Add the estimated $30 trillion loss to GDP. By 2100 the cost alone of sea level rise mitigation is about $14 trillion a year. So if nothing is done that's another $280 trillion every 20 years by 2100. Just for starters. So not even close to his claims of cheaper to adapt. "Cost" of green jobs on employment, which actually creates jobs. www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#10434a022800 Wind turbines need to be on a "massive scale" which is less than the massive scale of coal mines etc. such as the 67 km2 not metres, kilometres, Haerwusu coal mine. Never does he include the wrecking of the coast from oil and pipeline spills such as the $61+ billion BP oil spill, or the FF decommissioning costs or the environmental costs of FFs. Intermittent and therefore they emit more CO2: He neglects that coal needs to keep going when electricity is not needed because it can't wind up fast enough. Other forms of generation can be used such as gas which can be switched of when not in use and ramp up quickly. German plans to reduce their emissions by 80-95% this way. He also neglects storage. Take the Tesla battery installation in South Australia which paid for itself within 12 months at better than 100% return on investment. Environmental: Cries about turbine bird kills but neglects FAR FAR GREATER bird and bat kill and totally neglects ocean life kill from FFs. www.evwind.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BirdDeaths.jpg So he wants to give Africa electricity, good, well RE is 1/2 the cost of coal and far easier to install in remote areas. So RE is twice as good as coal.

James Pyke Well it's a fact that wind turbines are by far the biggest cause of man made bird deaths. And in the UK they've added £150 to my annual energy bill and have ruined the landscape in many rural parts of Devon where I live.

@@johnarmstrong3782 A disciple of the lynin' Lordship himself. "Well it's a fact that wind turbines are by far the biggest cause of man made bird deaths." A fact if you ignore coal and all other sources of greater deaths for example. www.evwind.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BirdDeaths.jpg "And in the UK they've added £150 to my annual energy bill " And how much has the $5.3 trillion a year FF subsidy gravy train added? Cost of energy production with subsidies removed. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg Oh look, all those beautiful oil spills. www.google.com/search?q=oil+spills&rlz=1C1CHNY_enAU699AU699&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl7oSOmujfAhVHsY8KHZ3UD4gQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=626 And beautiful coal mines www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enAU699AU699&biw=1366&bih=626&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=Htg5XJaIEcWAvQTym6CoBA&q=coal+mine+pollution&oq=coal+mine+pollution&gs_l=img.3..0.49914.56977..57558...0.0..0.284.4218.0j2j17......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0i67j0i8i30j0i5i30j0i24.fuEEj7VpYSY www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

Ha ha ha and you are a comedian.

@@jamesscott7657 Yes , I know ..... Al Gore debating ANYONE is very funny ! Agreed ... 😁

why does he tell so many pathetic lies then?

@@mcmanustony I'm all ears. Name them. The man follows certain data for his conclusions. I assume your source for data is the opposite. I personally know the man. I don't know you.

Gary McAleer can you name anyone else who has had a cease and desist letter issued from the House of Lords demanding he stop falsely claiming to be a member? He has claimed to have written peer reviewed papers on climate science. Can you cite them? He claims to have been Thatchers science advisor. Not bad for a man with a basic degree in classics and a diploma in journalism- and also the “fact” seems to have escaped M Thatcher who mentions her advisor in her Memoirs and it ain’t Moncton..... That barely scratches the surface of his dishonesty.

@@mcmanustony I have no disagreement, except this: the man's judgment on climate change is the rare voice I will always uplift to be of value. Toxic pollution is the great curse of the age: from radio and microwaves to industrial chemicals. Each of us carries over 100 manmade chemical toxins stored in our tissues. Climate change is just another time-and-money-wasted-distraction from what needs to be addressed.

Gary McAleer so you accept that he lied about the Lords, lied about having written peer reviewed papers, lied about being Thatchers adviser.....but his is still a valuable voice? Really? The voice of an unstoppable lying narcissist is of value? He also relentlessly lies about climate change, grievously misrepresents the work of real scientists and continued unashamed when those scientists call him out on his lies. His voice is has much value as a bus drivers on algebraic topology.

Yes however nothing will be done to stop this madness, politicians are paid to do as they are told without thinking of the consequences

anton brum And also the power company still has to keep oil,coal,nuc,and natural gas plants in working order for times when the wind is not blowing or at night time.

anton brum - then what you're saying is that the wind farms aren't viable, seeing that they consume more energy in their manufacturing than they will put out over their entire usable lifespan. Put simply, they literally waste energy.

Blackgeoff1 don’t forget they should be removed after they are not used anymore,including the concrete bast.

Anton you really do not understand modern generation networks at all. Solar panels were shown to meet base load requirements by the CSIRO but modern networks no longer need that classification. By the way the solar battery in South Australia has significantly reduced the cost of power in South Australia.

Around 400 tonnes of concrete per tower. Don't they realise how concrete is made

Its OK he gets paid handsomely for his lies. Which is too generous to a grubby sellout. Without that idiot the world would be much better off.

i hope not

Down west of Pincher Creek, they destroyed the majestic scenery of the Rocky Mountains. It looks like Crab now. I would have put it on the blood reserve.

Uh zero. Enjoy the whirling scenic view,

@@e.a.p3174 that's a bit racist if you actually mean it like a NIMBY thing. C'mon

They are not given fines, they are given subsidies!

@@zimfan101 Yep the FF industry are given $5.3 trillion a year to cause AGW. 10X more than the investment needed tackle the problem. 10X more each and every year than the entire RE sectors net worth!!!!

The word "windmill" is a semantical correct alternative for wind turbines. Just using the word mill (without wind) might be lazy but is understood and valid in the correct context as illustrated in the following sentence: "The mills on the hill produced all the electricity for the nearby town". As for semantical value, compare context with saying or writing: "The US invaded Iraq" Versus: "The USA invaded Iraq" Using "US" (without the formal A) might be lazy but is understood and valid in the correct context. Context matters. To illustrate, the following sentence is semantical correct: "The USA fellows had their traditional Christmas dinner" Wheras the following is incorrect: "The US fellows had their traditional Christmas dinner" For this specific context see: www.unitedstatesartists.org/

@@wimahlers but there is nothing being milled. The term wind mill is used so as to distinguish from a water mill. Wind and water energy was harnessed to mill grain to produce flour. Wind turbines are not milling grain so it is absolutely incorrect to use the term wind mill, or even wind farm. The wind is not being farmed, nobody is growing wind and these farms are not producing wind. But their presence is the result of a massive carbon footprint already when the consumption of the materials used are taken into account, including mining, cement for the massive foundations, trenches for cables, service roads up the sides of mountains and the destruction of the environment and bio diversity at the placement construction sites. And then the energy production companies have the cheek to say 100% green energy.

Same words have different meanings in different context. You may not find it appropriate, but many dictionary definitions that do show context do. See, among others: onelook.com/?w=windmill&ls=a As to your other argument, every single construction requires energy to build and maintain, This is also true for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power plants. Carbon footprint calculation must be based on the lifespan and source reuasability of the construction. Also, techniques are changing. A type of Norwegian sea windmill (wind turbine if you prefer) floats, and therefore does use exactly zero volume of cement for its base. And because it floats it can also be relocated to other positions in the sea during its lifetime (granted, it costs extra energy to relocate and re-cable).

@@wimahlers Pick nits, why don't we ... and avoid the issue?

Fine with me.

takes true genius to lie and fool so many people for so long and make a fortune doing it I guess.

@4Real Science Good for you, I've never met him and don't need to. But why are you fixated with him? Crush??

@4Real Science More alt facts from a denier, how cute.

What's a "genious"? Just a hunch, but you're not a "genious", are you?

@Paul Gavin An ignorant globalist who has no mastery of anything but ignorance and BS. Typical.

I guess you live in Antarctica then, or you've cooked your brain in the latest heatwave.

did yousee his eyes? they are going to explode,,,,this is nothing to love...this guy is staying under big pressure....i wouldnt wonder, if this guy is lying for his hole life

​@@akunakii3782 He's a complete crank. He also claimed to have a cure for all known diseases, and has apparently cured himself of the disease which caused that symptom (exopthalmos).

@@jamesthecat So where's your rational contribution to this debate, or can you only offer cheap jibes..??

Most charities are nothing more than a means of generating income for their board members and shareholders... I think a law should be passed compelling every charity to charitably spend all of it's income by the end of every financial year. In other words make them a genuinely break-even organisation. See how many would operate on that basis...

@@thetraveller869 This. This. This. Charities (and many “nonprofits”) also often depend on volunteers. A trademark of the money moving toward upper “management.”

[] ... I researched In that case, please present verifiable scientific sources that supports your claims. Much obliged.

Patrick Moore has been dead for almost 10 years...

Also, how is your wallet doing now, a year on? After all your research have you come to any new conclusions regarding energy self relience for the UK and Europe in general?

And the sad thing is: none of his predictions in the movie ever came to be!

Yep - Anthropogenic global warming, Sea level rise, covid ................ It is ALL ABOUT FEAR. AND IT WORKS.

I read today that some species of bat could be completely wiped out by these useless monstrosities

@@aeronomer8389 I read unless we curtail emissions most life will be wiped out. I heard it from 60,000 scientists. You know, specialists who know about such things.. Specialists if you like, same as your doctor or dentist . Do you call them liars ? Are the worlds scientists mistaken ? Where, exactly ? Is it a conspiracy ? If you have evidence, produce it, or STFU

@@percyhigginbottom7155 Bullshit. Temperatures and CO2 have been much higher in the past. Nothing about current climate is alarming. Stop being a useful idiot.

yea but we're killing women and children for oil?

Co2 has been much higher in Earths past. There have been warming and cooling periods before. 16 year old hysterical schoolgirls are not omniscient. We will adapt.

Indeed!!

Bat WomanXVII - I live in the west, where we have less choice than over east; we have only Synergy (used to be Western Power); and our bills only get higher every time, yet I know we're consuming less power. Outside of plain simple greed on the part of the privatised electricity corporations, the plan is to get the public screaming out for "renewables" because they imagine the electricity they pay through the nose for will become cheaper. It won't, of course. Our days of cheap energy are over.

Actually Geoff I live in the West too and solar panels have hugely reduced my power bills and the fact is wind and solar are now less than half the cost of fossil fuel powered energy. As soon as batteries get cheaper I will completely go solar. By the way have you noticed the massive fire fronts and the 9 year drought destroying the livelihoods of many people in QLD and Northern NSW, even though its not summer yet? Global warming is really kicking in now.

Really so why are they sucking up to Adani and other coal companies? I don't suppose that its because the Coal companies are pouring millions of dollars into the Governments pocket. By the way I hope your home hasn't been burnt down by the huge bushfires or that the farmers in your area haven't been made bankrupt by the nine year drought or that your town water supply has run out.

Here's a link by a scientist, Hansen climate change in a nut shell. Follow it then you can be informed better than 99% of the people here.www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Jon Nico could you link to him telling the truth please? Haven't seen it myself and certainly not here. Certainly not when he claimed to have discovered a cure for AIDS, certainly not when he claimed to be Thatcher's scientific adviser. Certainly not on matters of climate change.

@Donald McCarthy kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m8-AfNl5mZ-8XXk.html all these scientists agree with him 31000+

@@KZfaqforcedmetochangemyname and out of 8 million wow. The science doesn't agree though. And the number of climate scientists on your list? SFA. Wait not all scientists agree that the Earth isn't flat. Well there's your proof it must be flat then. What is wrong with you? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ht9ii7l6sa65moU.html

@Rory ForbesIf he was Thatcher's science advisor then she didn't know it then. And why would someone with a science degree want someone who hasn’t to advise them? She had actual science advisers for that. I heard an interview on the radio with one of Thatcher’s actual science advisers who called him a glorified baggage handler who was given the position as a favour to his father. The “God” you worship is nothing but a conman. Hadfield even uses his own words to debunk himself, so you cult worshipper, you can’t even believe it when he tells you his full of shit. As for not him not saying he has discovered a cure for AIDS well tell him that because that’s what he claimed. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtCYh9V0zLzGZYk.html “I suggest you stop relying on any facts from Peter Hadfield” I’ll take actual facts from anyone, just not your or Monckton’s alternative facts. So I‘ll mention it now as you have so eloquently pointed out you are a real idiot. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gMxxZK-hzr_PYqM.html “As he pointed out in the discussion above he and Legates falsified John Cook's pathetic 97.1% consensus paper.” Nope he lied about Cook’s study and misrepresented it. Numerous studies also confirm Cook’s study. Cook also asked the authors of those papers to self assess. The self assessed authors had a 97.2% where as Cook had a 97.1% consensus. Multiple studies confirm this. Have you actually read Monckton’s BS? For a start one the “study” he ruled any paper discussing the mitigation of AGW as not believing in AGW, because everyone writes papers on how to fix problems they don’t believe in. Here is Monckton debunking himself and admitting it. But you believe Monckton must be a liar because you believe his lies. You deniers are a mixed up lot. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7FnZ8mrs6e5oWg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z96oaMtisLSxcXU.html

I recently came across a meme that I cannot find the source of, but for interest's sake it states that "a two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that require 300 tons of iron ore and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it". That's just the steel. And as engineer 800lbgrila commented above, the copper has to be mined. At present, I fail to see how wind turbines can possibly be viable in terms of energy required just to build them.

Efficiency is neither here nor there when the primary energy (wind) is free.

@@harry130747 Think again. You need to add the lifespan of the turbine with the amount of energy it can create and compare that to the tremendous amount of resources it took to build it and install it. Time deteriorates everything, even if it is not spinning. I don't see an issue with remove cabins in the mountains or research centres in Antarctica having a wind turbine as those spots are very windy and remote. What bothers me is when they place them in large cities(and nearby coast lines) of more conventional energy sources, purely for political show-and-tell. I don't know who they are showing, but it does tell one thing: They are not afraid to spend YOUR MONEY on useless things.

@@harry130747 I see, so the 20 million per turbine is nothing huh?

@@leofortey7561 [] ... when they place them [red. windmills] in large cities Where? Please show me where this is done. Much obliged.

@@harry130747 You're kidding right? For a start the wind is free only when it blows - and at the right speed, like Goldilocks porridge - not too fast and not too slow but juuust right. Windmills most certainly are not free. They must be designed, manufactured, transported, constructed and commissioned, before a single light bulb is powered by one. The 800 tons or so of concrete each one stands on is a huge consumption of resources never considered in the green argument nor their limited lifespan (20-ish years) and cost of disposal. Take off the blindfold Harry me boy and see how you've been conned!!

So you want a persistent liar in charge, who pontificates on climate science despite having no scientific qualifications whatsoever? Yup sounds sensible. Hope you're enjoying the heatwave

@@jimjones8736 only leftards like you tell hysterical climate lies.

dont belive him

​@@jimjones8736 Yes, they do. They just want to hear a practiced blusterer making their fantasies seem realistic.

@@jamesthecat What fascinates me is the psychology of these people - that is: the ones that don't have oil interests. They reject science in general and don't understand the scientific method or how science works, yet they are perfectly willing to accept Lord Bunkum science, without even having the faintest idea what he is talking about. I think it's probably a kind of clique thing. In group- out group. They gain their strength from knowing they are part of an elite group with special insight into the real truth. Yes, that's it: Feeling special is very important. It is also much easier and cheaper than having to study physics for years at school and university... Omg! That sounds like it could be Lord Monckton!😀

The wind turbines are a waste of taxpayers money. Raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels greens the planet and increases agricultural yields. It does more good than harm. Man has been changing the environment since Palaeolithic times. Even hunter gatherers alter the fauna and flora in their environment. It is much more economical to adapt to any changes in climate than wasting trillions of dollars trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

this co2 thing is just a hoax----a freaking joke to generate more money and power

Look at the presentation William Happer gave at the John Locke institute 4 years ago, find it on YT

Plus the energy to dismantle and recycle them.

@@josephschmeggins6311 but whats the matter? they do a lot of energy

this co2 thing is just a fantasything to make extra power n money

Maurice Laidler many years ago I went to Crete, and one of the tourist sites was a farming valley where the irrigation system was run by windmills. Windmills in Lassithi. At the time we were told that we were lucky to see them as they were phasing them out for electric ones, as the wind ones were too unreliable.

Your views will be ruined much more when the sea swallows your house

I think it’s just taking the piss really

You and lord Monkey are well suited. Neither of you could solve your way out of a quadratic equation.

Not!!!😢

Yep he sure is ignorant.

So please explain how wind has become dispatchable. Go ahead. How is it dispatchable in Germany?

@@jamesscott7657 your the ignorant idiot did you not listen to the scientist! Lay of the soy bata

😅😅😅

Lol that is just indicative of his and your obvious lack of intelligence. U do realize they don't work like that?-hmmm u might need to do a little actual real research.

Shaun - so, you are perfect?

Beta

Deluded....

Derek Tomlinson: Lord Moncton is not a gentleman, he is a con artist and a paid shill. I would invite you to view potholer54's channel series on climate change. he has several videos about Moncton, and shows what Moncton states/promotes vs. the sources he claims to have gotten his points from. Judge for yourself, and don't take pothoer54's word for it, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. look up the stuff and compare the originals to what Moncton claims, and decide for yourself just how truthful he is being. I daresay yolu will be disappointed.

Well coined!

Totally agree, nuclear is 100% our path forward to create safe clean carbon neutral power

Britewhiteram with thorium reactors.

@@shanekonarson did months ago, thorium is definately an option, just needs to be developed and put into commercial operation, but current fuel rod designs are orders of magnitude more advanced than three mile island, of which unit 1 continued to operate cleanly and safely for 40 years after unit 2 safely partially melted down into its containment shell, they only just now shut it down and have started the decommissioning

@@Britewhiteram Although i severely disagree that high CO2 poses any problem whatsoever, i do agree that 4th generation nuclear reactors should be built left and right for the sake of efficiency and reliable and secure electricity.

.... An agri method, which, btw, has been heavily criticized by nearly all of the top biologists and soil scientists over th past 30 yrs. That way of farming will kill us all, if we do not abandon it very soon

The FF industry BIGGER KILLERS. 7 million PEOPLE via FF air pollution a year and far BIGGER BIRD KILLERS. So stop your coal cucking crocodile tears. www.evwind.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BirdDeaths.jpg

Fossil fuel generation. Kills everything living.

These "expensive" wind and solar farms which generate cheaper, cleaner electricity, are undesirable for the FF industry and their coal cucked cult of denial brethren and their $5.3 trillion a year taxpayer funded welfare scam. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg For the rest of humanity, most definitely desirable.

Saudis need it now, to fund arms . No way will they leave it in the ground.

Our weather changed drastically when they started putting up the thousands of turbines up all over the world.

Well the good thing is in 20-30 years they will be gone. Just look at Germany they are now switching to natural gas generation!

@@louiseyoung7582 You can't blame that on windmills, it's more likely just an ever changing climate. Weather has been changing where I live far before windmills. All I've noticed is when dove season comes around there are hardly any.

Whereas of course you love the look and smell of the Texas oil wells and the fracking equipment littering the countryside that are polluting water supplies and which are far more visually polluting than windmills and whose toxic emissions kill more than a million people every year.

@@jamesscott7657 a million people a year? Good grief pal what government school and crappy college indoctrinated you? Without fossil fuel technology the industrial period would have never occured and millions of people would freeze to death and die of starvation. We need all forms of energy technology not less.

Good god you denialists are also fantacists as well. Have you ever tried the truth. It is liberating.

Don;t show your ignorance so openly Roland. You are an embarrassment.

So fossil fuel turbines don't wear out? I wonder why the old coal based generation plants are being shut down and the owners want to build wind and solar. Perhaps its because wind and solar power is half the cost .

Powskier: first, do some research on what it takes to manufacture solar panels. Then how to dispose of them when they have reached the end of their life. Hint - you can't. Then work out how you are going to use them when the sun don't shine. Then work out the costs of making, buying, maintaining and disposing of batteries. Then compare all of this with the cost of nuclear power. Many nuclear power stations have been operating for years and there have only been a very few incidents. The Russian one I would put down to poor design, materials and operation. The Japanese one I would put down to being built on a fault line and no being able to cope - once again poor design. But there are many out there that have been operating on land, in submarines and big ships for years. Both solar and windmills have come about because of the fiction of AGW. But our laws should ensure that industries clear up their act re. pollution. However, try telling that to the Indians and the Chinese.

Pay your carbon indulgence you eater!

@@braveboaz3997 Will there be beer?

Thank you Christopher Monckton ( I can't call you Lord because you are not one) thank you for all the other lies you tell to get your pay packet. Please don't mention the highest temperature ever recorded right across Australia as over a hundred of fires burn through farmlands forests and country towns. How wonderful that the beautiful city of Sydney is shrouded with acrid smoke. Thank you again for the dry rivers that once carried paddle steamers and who's fish and abundant birdlife have been wiped out and its not climate change Oh no no no no.

Odd how you sook about birds being killed when 7-9 million people die each year from FF air pollution. Don't seem too concerned about the far greater number of birds killed by FFs either I see. They don't seemed concerned by the truth either. Like all deniers they only seem to care about that $5.3 trillion a year taxpayer funded FF welfare subsidy gravy train. www.evwind.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BirdDeaths.jpg

@@krystal5887 Fossil Fuel air pollution

@4Real Science Why don't you stop sucking Koch long enough to read something other than FF funded fantasies? Moron. By definition CO2 is a pollutant, moron. If only your parents new what birth control was, the world would be a better place.

@4Real Science CO2 is part of me, so what? That your scientific understanding? Worked that out all on your own? So is water moron. So if you think more is better go live at the bottom of the sea moron. See how that works out for you moron. Crap is a part of you too, perhaps the entirety.

James Pyke uh you want to know the subsidies given to “green” energy or were you too afraid to put it out there? Let me know I’ll do the work for you.