Uploaded June 2011 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This will have to be the last video in the Monckton Bunkum series, because he's made so many mistakes in his presentations it will take at least three more videos to debunk them all, and I'm getting tired of having to correct him. So I've issued a challenge to Monckton fans in this video -- instead of finding things Monckton got wrong (which is easy), find something he actually managed to get right. It has to be something that contradicts the conclusion that CO2 is largely responsible for recent global warming. Now here's the scary part: You won't be able to simply repeat a Monckton claim and tell me it must be true, you have to check Monckton's source and verify it.
SOURCES:
0:18 "Apocalypse? No!" -- Monckton film, 2007
0:59 Myth of the cooling planets in my video "Climate Change -- Is the Earth Cooling?"
1:16 "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years" -- S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004
3:20 Cited by John Cook, skepticalscience.com/Do-500-scientists-refute-anthropogenic-global-warming.html
3:38 "What the sunspot record tells us about space climate" -- D. Hathaway and R. Wilson Solar Physics 2004
4:32 "Is climate sensitive to solar variability?" Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West Opinion piece at http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
4:41 "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
-- S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2003
Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature
A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009
"Solar trends and global warming" -- R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research July 2009
"How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006" J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008
"Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise" -- M. Lockwood, June 2008
5:24 Slide 96 "Could it be Solar?" http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
5:49 "Meet the Climate Sceptics" BBC TV Feb 2011
7:10- 9:46 taken from posts in the forum of my Monckton Bunkum series of videos, and the videos themselves.
11:04 http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
11:06 youtube.com/user/greenman3610
This will have to be the last video in the Monckton Bunkum series, because he's made so many mistakes in his presentations it will take at least three more videos to debunk them all, and I'm getting tired of having to correct him. So I've issued a challenge to Monckton fans in this video -- instead of finding things Monckton got wrong (which is easy), find something he actually managed to get right. It has to be something that contradicts the conclusion that CO2 is largely responsible for recent global warming. Now here's the scary part: You won't be able to simply repeat a Monckton claim and tell me it must be true, you have to check Monckton's source and verify it.
SOURCES:
0:18 "Apocalypse? No!" -- Monckton film, 2007
0:59 Myth of the cooling planets in my video "Climate Change -- Is the Earth Cooling?"
1:16 "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years" -- S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004
3:20 Cited by John Cook, skepticalscience.com/Do-500-scientists-refute-anthropogenic-global-warming.html
3:38 "What the sunspot record tells us about space climate" -- D. Hathaway and R. Wilson Solar Physics 2004
4:32 "Is climate sensitive to solar variability?" Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West Opinion piece at http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
4:41 "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
-- S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2003
Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature
A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009
"Solar trends and global warming" -- R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research July 2009
"How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006" J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008
"Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise" -- M. Lockwood, June 2008
5:24 Slide 96 "Could it be Solar?" http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
5:49 "Meet the Climate Sceptics" BBC TV Feb 2011
7:10- 9:46 taken from posts in the forum of my Monckton Bunkum series of videos, and the videos themselves.
11:04 http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
11:06 youtube.com/user/greenman3610


![Did Greta Thunberg slip up?
I have been asking subscribers for examples of an error by Greta Thunberg for over five years. Now I think Ive found one. But it was buried under a pile of fabrications and even worse errors by her critics. A definite own goal.
ERRORS SUGGESTED BY POSTERS:
Following my request for more Thunberg errors, here are a couple of posts I received:
1) @lemdixon01wrote: We only have 5 years left tweet in 2016 deleted I could find no record of this tweet, so I asked the poster where he got this from. He wrote back: I dont care about exactly what the tweet said. This kind of emphasises the point I made in the video, that a lot of Thunberg quotes are just people making stuff up.
2) @ShuffleboardJerk writes that he 100% support[s] Greta but he did find an error: “About 100 companies emits [sic] approximately 71% of our total emissions of CO2.” - Greta Thunberg, 2019
I checked, and this is indeed a quote, and Thunberg was incorrect in saying it. The figure comes from a study that identified 100 companies that produce fossil fuels, mostly oil companies and coal mining companies. But they are not burning their own product, simply supplying it, and therefore are not emitting CO2, as Thunberg claims. Not only that, one of the companies was listed as China, the other Russia. These are not companies, they are countries. So the figure is wrong and misleading.
It is interesting that none of Thunbergs critics could find an error, they simply made up quotes or passed on a myth they read. It took an admirer of Thunberg to have the intelligence to find something, check its veracity, quote it correctly, and then have the honesty and objectiveness to post it publicly. That says a lot.
SOURCES:
Forbes story:
https://perma.cc/ZG8N-6ES6
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/viral-posts-distort-greta-thunberg-tweet-warning-about-climate-change/
https://rumble.com/v2vhz98-greta-thunberg-said-all-of-humanity-would-be-wiped-out-by-today-trust-the-s.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_m
https://highlandcountypress.com/wrong-again-sorry-greta-humanity-still-here#gsc.tab=0 Did Greta Thunberg slip up?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UVZiKGjl6RY/mqdefault.jpg)







![Will Earths magnetic reversal cause catastrophe? (Part 2 of Did the CIA classify...?)
Part one of this video is here:
https://youtu.be/0FtYSzS53C0
TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CHARITY:
I do not ask for contributions. Instead, please support the work of Health in Harmony, which trades forest protections for health care. See my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GRugP9pU for an explanation of their work.
Donations can be made here: https://healthinharmony.org/donate-today/
Health in Harmony also has a live website: https://actnow.healthinharmony.org/
CORRECTIONS:
1) 13:01 – I said ‘kilometers an hour’ instead of ‘miles an hour.’
2) As expected, someone corrected my understanding of the torque required to stop the Earths rotation. The formulaa I used is for a uniform sphere, whereas the Earth has a much denser center and a lighter crust. So the torque would be slightly less than I calculated. But in non-scientific terms, still a shitload.
3) Another poster wrote: The unit of torque is Nm [Newton-meter] not Nm/s.
4) @anttibra, a physics teacher from Finland, corrected my calculation. On the basis that he knows better then me, Im happy to lay it out here. He wrote:
Torque is calculated by this equation: M=F x r, where x is vector product. If force is plumb compared to distance of rotating axis, then you can use simple multiplication.
Angular momentum is L=J*w, where J=moment of inertia (similar to mass in rotation) and w=angular velocity.
Assuming Earth is uniform sphere (its not, but this is simplified math), then J=2/5*Mr^2=9,721052869650016e37 kgm^2
Since Earth rotate once every 23h 56min 4,10 seconds, then angular velocity w=2*pi/(86164,1 s)=7,292*10^-5 1/s.
Now we get Earths angular momentum L=7,08870359707824214497e33 kgm^2/s.
When we want to stop the Earth, we must apply torque over time.
delta L=M*delta t, delta t = time we apply torque. If the Earth stops in 10 hours, then delta t= 36000 seconds.
M=L/t=7,08870359707824214497e33 kgm^2/s / (36000 s) = 1,96908433252173392916e29 Nm.
How much is this? Well, if we apply force on the equator, the required force would be:
M=F*r
F = M/r = 1,96908433252173392916e29 Nm / (6 378 140 m) = 3,08723912068680513309e22 = 31e21 N = 31 ZN = 31 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 N.
Another poster added: You have this line as part of your corrections: Since Earth rotate once every 23h 56min 4,10 seconds, then angular velocity w=2*pi/(86164,1 s)=7,292*10^-5 1/s. The units are in radians per second, but the unit written have been written as rotations per second (Hz or 1/s).
SOURCES:
Earth Catastrophe Cycle | Pole Shift
Suspicious0bservers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJ4zVNe_vk
An overview of Earth’s magnetic field
https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html#_Toc2075556
Strength of field falling:
https://www.ontariobeneathourfeet.com/magnetic-reversal
Magnetic field over 9,000 years:
https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
Equations of inertia;
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/force-required-to-stop-a-rotating-disc.553017/#:~:text=a%20rotating%20disc%3F-,The%20formula%20for%20calculating%20the%20force%20required%20to%20stop%20a,takes%20to%20stop%20the%20disc.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/613448/energy-required-to-tilt-earth-s-axis-by-90-degrees
https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
Recurrent ancient geomagnetic field anomalies shed light onfuture evolution of the South Atlantic Anomaly https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2200749119
The Earth’s magnetic field – an overview
https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html
https://www.ontariobeneathourfeet.com/magnetic-reversal
How Does A Magnetic Reversal Affect Life On Earth?
RapidChangesinStrengthandDirectionofEarthsMagneticFieldOverthePast100,000Years
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2023GC011236 Will Earths magnetic reversal cause catastrophe? (Part 2 of Did the CIA classify...?)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VpmUdUDIjVQ/mqdefault.jpg)