Jump to content

[Central] - Climate Change / Global Warming topic

Torero

By Torero
in Science & Technology

 Share

Recommended Posts

Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
Posted

This Opening Post (OP) intends to summarize earlier topics, FDR podcats and FDR videos on the subject of "Antropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) or, as it is framed more recently due to the absence of that supposed warming for over a decade, "Climate Change". I will use the abbreviation AGW to make the text more compact.

 

Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies)

Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest)

 

Forum topics on AGW

FDR podcasts on AGW

FDR videos on AGW & YouTube Playlist

 

  • Upvote 6
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great post Torero - thank you for doing this! :)

 

If there are any shows not included above, please post them in this thread so Torero or I can add them to the list!

 

If anybody else would like to start other threads for different topics I think that would be absolutely fantastic!

 

Thank you Mike. I like to gather information and make things accessible and presentable (earlier forum experiences...).

 

For other topics I may do similar things, but this is the closest to me professionally.

 

Will remove the lines below from the OP, so it's only information collection.

 

I think what would help the debate (especially outside the safe walls of reason here; so as tools for others on other forums or in (online) discussions elsewhere) is to have a list of arguments and counter-arguments and intelligent reasonable responses to those. But that would take some more time and effort...

 

The video I wanted to add is unfortunately in Dutch (subtitles are only available in Dutch). It is a very nice presentation by a great geologist, Salomon Kroonenberg. He wrote a book The Human Scale: The Earth Ten Thousand Years from Now, that I have and it is very entertaining and informative on the longer term thinking we geologists are used to.

 

The presentation is in Dutch but very graphic and funny (looks like my own professional presentations) so the information from it should be not too difficult for non-Dutch speakers to grasp:

 

 

There is still nothing wrong with the climate - Salomon Kroonenberg

 

In summary:

- he explains the flaws in the IPCC models

- he explains the factors of System Earth contributing to climate (not only CO2, far more parameters)

- he goes on the fun tour explaining how the Earth will look like in 10,000 years and beyond, due to the geological forces

- at the end he talks about what "measures" should (not) be "taken" even if "Climate Change" would be real

 

If anyone has any questions about translation or the geology in the presentation, just ask. I am happy to help out.

TheRobin Newbie

TheRobin

Posted
Posted

I think what's really missing to have a reasoned discussion is an actual talk with a climate scientists. It's very easy to "rebut" all the models if you don't have someone nearby who can tell you when you're not making sense or misunderstanding things (which seems to happen a lot in the skeptic community).

Also it's way easier to just claim corruption and tinkering with data, when the accused isn't there to defend himself, but that doesn't really make a good case either imo.

I think if you really wanna get down to understanding the debate better, you need to get an interview going, where you can bring all the objections forth and have an actual dialogue with a climate scientist in the field, else you're really just talking from a point of ignorance to people who are on average about as ignorant about the topic as you are and that wouldn't help anyone understand things better.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow, just noticed this.  Big thanks.  (Browser bookmark!)

 

Thanks and my pleasure. Updated the OP with the two latest FDR podcasts/videos/topics on "Climate Change" (8-01-2016 call-in show and 17-01-2016 video put under forum topics).

 

And added the GOLD File of the 14-02-2015 show.

  • Upvote 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Stefan,

 

Responding to the excellent show Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - 14-02-2015 (Gold members, really recommended to listen to this!) I just heard and linked in the OP, you asked (sorry to paraphrase a bit):

 

"Listeners, please, please, if you have any information on where this climate change 'debate' has actually favored a decrease in government power, please let me know"

 

I have no information on that per sé, but what I wanted to point out is the idea that oil companies are against CO2 taxation and thus sponsor uniquely "climate change deniers" is outdated and has become an argument only for the lazy leftists.

 

In this post I want to outline what is happening in the background and why this "argument" is redundant and should be avoided.

 

===================================

 

1 - the words of CEO of Exxon himself, from the ExxonPerspectives webpage:

 

As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009:

 

A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.

 

2 - the same company, the largest oil company in the world, is actually profiting directly from this CO2 sequestration ponzi scheme:
 

As outlined in this press release by Exxon itself, December 2010:

 

ExxonMobil Expands World's Largest Carbon Capture Plant in Wyoming ExxonMobil has invested more than $2.6 billion in the state of Wyoming. ExxonMobil’s facilities provide jobs, tax revenue and economic growth in the area. Since 2005, the company has paid over $237 million to the state in severance and property taxes.

But this very successful company wouldn't do that if it wouldn't be profitable for them, from the same press release:

 

The captured carbon dioxide is sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, helping to extend the productive lives of mature oil fields and producing more energy supplies for America.

 

The $86 million expansion includes the installation of compressors to capture 50 percent more carbon dioxide for potential use in enhanced oil recovery and other industrial uses.

 

3 - an article in The New York Times, December 2013 states:

 

Mainstream economists have long agreed [?] that putting a price on carbon """pollution""" is the most effective way to fight global warming. The idea is fairly simple: if industry must pay to spew the carbon pollution that scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, the costs will be passed on to consumers in higher prices for gasoline and electricity. Those high prices are expected to drive the market away from fossil fuels like oil and coal, and toward low-carbon renewable sources of energy.

 

In 1994, dozens of Democratic [!] lawmakers lost their jobs after Al Gore, who was vice president at the time, urged them to vote for a climate change bill that would have effectively taxed carbon """pollution""".

 

[Alan] Jeffers [Exxon Mobil spokesman] said Exxon Mobil would support a carbon tax if it was paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that Mr. Gore has endorsed. “Exxon Mobil and many other large companies understand that climate change poses a direct economic threat to their businesses,” said Dan Weiss, director for climate policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group with close ties to the Obama administration. “They need to convince their political allies to act before it’s too late.”

 

4 - a more recent, December 2015, article in the Houston Chronicle informs:

 

Exxon Mobil, which recently said it supported the Paris climate talks, said curbing greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by the United Nations' climate scientists group would be vastly expensive, if it isn't done efficiently.

 

[T]rimming carbon emissions to the point that average temperatures would rise roughly 1.6 degrees Celsius - enabling the planet to avoid dangerous symptoms of carbon pollution - would bring costs up to $2,000 a ton of CO2. That translates to a $20 a gallon boost to pump prices by the end of this century, Trelenberg said.

 

"We ought to have a broad-based price on carbon across the economy that then lets the market sort out what are the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." [some crooky crony-crapitalist talk here...]

 

5 - a research paper published in August 2015 shows:

 

Implicit Climate Subsidy Exceeds Profits at 20 Top Fossil Fuel Companies

For 20 leading fossil fuel producing firms,  we measured the economic cost to society of the climate change impacts caused by the use of their products, and compared this with their profits in each year from 2008 to 2012. Because the companies presently don’t have to pay [!!!] for these climate impacts, we view this as an implicit subsidy to the companies.

 

Implicit-subsidy-figure-1-v2.jpg

 

All the companies lie above the line, which means that the economic cost to society of the CO2 emissions from the products they sell was greater than their after‐tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008

 

6 - earnings/net income of Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, total number for fiscal year 2015 should be available early February:

  • 2014 - full year - $ 32.5 billion
  • 2015 - 2nd quarter - $ 4.2 billion - 1st half - $ 9.1 billion
  • 2015 - 3rd quarter - $ 4.2 billion - 1st nine months - $ 13.4 billion
  • 2001-2014 - net income maxima $ 45.2 billion (2008) & $ 44.9 billion (2012)

7 - revenue Exxon Mobil:

  • 2001-2014 - max $ 467 billion (2011), min $ 201 billion (2002), recent $ 394 billion (2014)

----------------------------------

 

Conclusions:

  • the oil companies, with Exxon as leader, are involved in the CO2 tax scheme
  • they, Exxon is not the only one, build and expand CO2 "sequestration/capture" plants with high investment and make profits from that
  • Exxon has paid, according to their own website, between 2005 and 2010 $ 237 million in property taxes and severance, while investing 11x that amount; $ 2.6 billion, in the state of Wyoming alone
  • although the company may have resisted CO2 taxation in the past, it is now in favor, desiring "subsidies" or "returns" from the government to have "revenue-neutral taxes" which should be globally implemented, according to the 1994 plans of Al Gore (!)

====================

 

Now let's take a look at the "other side of the fence", the carbon emission "market" bubble scam by the government.

 

This 2008 article shows some staggering figures...

 

The United States will be home to a $1 trillion carbon emission market by 2020 if federal and state policymakers continue on their current path towards a comprehensive "cap-and-trade" program that is confined to domestic trading only. In an analysis of bills today before the U.S. Congress, New Carbon Finance research economists based in New York, Washington D.C. and London, U.K. predict that in 12 years a carbon-constrained U.S. economy that includes a cap-and-trade system allowing only domestic trades will produce:

  • A $1 trillion carbon trading market -- more than twice the size of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme;
  • A carbon price of $40 per tonne as soon as 2015, which will result in a rise in consumer energy prices in real terms of roughly 20% for electricity, 12% for gasoline and 10% for natural gas -- as well as impacts on other prices as higher energy and transportation costs filter through the economy; and
  • Major U.S. investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas mitigation projects and technologies.

"America's Climate Security Act," co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (Independent Democrat, Connecticut) and John Warner (Republican, Virgina) [sic], is a product of bi-partisan compromise that has given it extra traction in Congress, according to New Carbon Finance. However, the Lieberman-Warner bill rules out international trading of credits.

 

Allowing carbon-constrained U.S. firms to trade credits with firms in China or India, for example, where emission reduction measures are relatively inexpensive, would yield an estimated U.S. carbon price as low as $15 per tonne, thereby saving the American economy about $145 billion per year, says Guy Turner, London-based Director of New Carbon Finance.

 

The company forecasts that any bill passed by the Congress is likely to include trade sanctions on imports from countries unwilling to participate in mandatory carbon emission caps, an idea also raised in the European Union.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Final conclusions:

  • the CO2 "credit" market vastly outgrows the revenue of the biggest player in the US oil industry ($ 1000 billion vs ~ $ 467 billion (2011))
  • the oil companies at present do not pay carbon taxes
  • even when they are obliged to do so, they settle for "revenue-neutral" taxes, making sure their revenue is not affected
  • they will pass on the costs of taxes to the customers
  • the oil companies actually profit from this CO2 scame by "capturing" and storing it and selling it again to enhance oil production

 

Whoever was still in doubt about the craziness of this "trading a natural gas for money and using it in international politics to form trade barriers and trade deals" should have awoken now, I hope.... :unsure:

  • Upvote 2
AccuTron Newbie

AccuTron

Posted
Posted

What a gigantic case of no one being able to say that the emperor is wearing no clothes.  Even Exxon can't say so, or it'll get a huge boycott from the uninformed.

Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In this topic we have seen so far:

  • the list of FDR podcasts, videos and topics on the subject of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", rebranded as "Climate Change [yet still human-induced]"
  • the involvement of the oil companies themselves in this political scam
  • the huge financial incentives and government power play using "carbon credits"

Let's now take a look at the "predictions" made in the past and how they turned out in the real world. And let's see if the well-paid alarmists actually learned from their mistakes and misjudgements...

 

For the years 1969-2009 I use this link as source. Quotes are in dark red.

 

===============================

 

1969:

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.- - Presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan 1969

 

1971:

By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people

 

1978:

Climate experts [??] believe [?] the next Ice Age is on its way.

 

1988:

In New York City by 2008 The West Side Highway will be under water.

...you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.

 

1989:

New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now[; 2004]

 

1989:

entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000

 

1990:

Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.”

 

By 1996 The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.

 

2000:

David Viner,[...] told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” [...]

 

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.

 

2004:

Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming.

 

Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed.

By 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades.

or, more "correct":

the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.

 

2005:

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010 some 50 million “climate refugees in ”the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe.

 

However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring.

 

2007, 2008 & 2009:

Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”  Gore said during some of the summer months, Arctic ice could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.”

 

Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels.

In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979.

 

Conclusions:

  • not only did none of those predictions come true, the opposite effect was observed in many cases
  • the alarmist fearmongering apocalyptic Armageddonists did not learn at all from their earlier false "predictions"; they did not throw away their crystal ball at all. They just continue with their scare tactics like nothing happened

What about 2010-2016?

 

1 - The Guardian, 2010 publishes:

 

Evidence that the global climate is changing is now unequivocal, but what these changes mean for regional and local weather events, both now and in the future, remains uncertain.

 

"Climate models are not crystal balls [???], but they can be useful tools provided people understand the uncertainties," says Neil Massey, technical coordinator of climateprediction.net. Marion Manton, at Oxford University's department for continuing education and project leader of the climateprediction.net initiative, adds: "Anyone can use these information packs to learn about how climate simulation works, and potential users can explore how – and how not - to use our results in planning how to adapt to climate change."

 

 

The author of this "article" is Suzanne Rosier, at the bottom of her article we read:

 

Suzanne Rosier is project coordinator of climateprediction.net and research scientist at Oxford University.

 

So far for "indepedent media"; the project coordinator of a website is quoting the project leader and technical coordinator of the same project and the "research" "scientist" of one of the "highest regarded" universities in the world is referring to her own colleague.

 

2 - the same "newspaper" published in 2015 an article which says at the end:

 

Kate’s article doesn’t try to show that computer model predictions are necessarily compatible with observations. Their main point is to show that “compatible” is ill-defined and that differences between models and observations can arise from many different sources, none of which we can differentiate by looking at short-term global mean trends.

 

So, if the models "are not compatible with reality" we "just change the definition of the word compatible". Not surprising for the sharp contributors of this forum; it happens with so many things in the media; just change the definition and then it fits.

 

3 - the predictions of the "mega-" and "micro-droughts" in California are done in The Washington Post by author Darryl Fears [what's in the name?]:

 

“With climate change, the likelihood of a megadrought goes up considerably,” said Toby R. Ault, an assistant professor in the department of Earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell

 

After 2050, there is “overwhelming evidence of a dry shift,” Ault said, “way drier than the megadroughts of the 1100s and 1200s.”

 

Beverly Law, a specialist in global change biology at Oregon State University’s College of Forestry, co-authored a study of megadroughts three years ago.

 

A - So assuming a (political) hypothesis, the likelihood of an event as the result of that hypothesis is "considerably increased"? That is not science, "assistant professor", that is circular reasoning.

B - "Evidence" set 35 years in the future? I thought evidence is only available in the present and past...?

C - "Global change biology", is that a new study? What the heck does that mean?

 

4 - quite a nice article, January 2016 showing with illustrated graphs how wrong Al Gore's "predictions" were, done on January 25th, 2006 for the next ten years:

 

“within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.”

 

We passed the 25th of January 2016 without "a true planetary emergency"... Gore's crystal ball seems to have been made of ice crystals...

 

5 - more predictions for 2016, the "key year" with presidential elections and "the now really urgent climate problem" come from climatetrust.org:

 

Addressing climate change will play a larger role in federal decision-making and political platforms in 2016. With the energy created by the COP21 gathering in Paris still buzzing around us, a presidential campaign well underway, and a little more than a year left for members of the Obama Administration to leave their full mark on history, it seems clear that 2016 will be a year of climate action. Obama’s Clean Power Plan and his recent rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, paint a clear picture of how the 44th President wants to be remembered with respect to climate change. In June, the USDA announced it will take additional steps to integrate climate change adaptation into its programs and operations.

 

We anticipate that in 2016, the opposition to the Plan will fail, states will seek a mass based approach to compliance, and the use of carbon markets across the U.S. will grow as a result.

 

The International Energy Agency has estimated that we ["we"] need investment flows of $53T [that is 53,000,000,000,000 dollars!!] by 2035 to mitigate the projected catastrophe of runaway climate change. The divest/invest effort has brought urgency to the need, and we saw many major institutions, such as the World Council of Churches, California’s Public Employees Retirement System, and the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation all rise to the commitment to divest from fossil fuel as part of the transition to a clean energy future. DiCaprio’s divestment from his fossil fuel holdings has led to increased investment in renewable energy companies. To date, 430 institutions across 43 countries and representing $2.6T [that is 2,600,000,000,000 dollars...] in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies.

 

 

"Integrate climate change adaptation"... hmm...

"a mass based approach to compliance"... what "mass" is the basis for this?

"Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation" helps 'us' all to "mitigate the projected catastrophe of 'runaway' climate change"...

 

On IMDB we read that Leo in his latest movie -excellent, by the way!- The Revenant not only traveled -by kerosine-slurping planes- from Canada to Argentina with the rest of the film crew to film the winter scenes at the end of the movie, but also:

 

Some of the filming occurred near Calgary, where unpredictable chinook winds have produced spring-like conditions in the dead of winter for as long as weather has been recorded. Evidently unaware of these chinooks, Leonardo DiCaprio attributed a sudden thaw to the unprecedented effects of global warming, much to the amusement of locals and Canadian media.

 

Final conclusions

  • the world has not come to an end, an apocalyps or "a true emergency"
  • the scam spreads from "respected" "scientific" institutions (Oxford #6, Princeton #11, Cornell #17) to governments to all kind of "private initiatives" to Hollywood
  • the staggering numbers are in the trillions, not only in 2020 (the government "carbon credit" market linked in the previous post), but already now (2.6 trillion dollar assets)

 

  • Upvote 2
  • 4 months later...
  • 6 months later...
Kikker Newbie

Kikker

Posted
Posted

Despite having a very annoying voice, this youtuber made me question my position on climate change. Any rebuttals? I don't have the time or knowledge to research this unfortunately.

 

  • 2 months later...
Jsbrads Newbie

Jsbrads

Posted
Posted

No one seems to disagree, the 1990 model was just wrong.

If the scientific community actually dismiss that fact because that model was crude and didn't take into account a number of things... what's to encourage me to believe their next model will be much better? Are they now capable of accounting for all those things? Probably not.

  • 8 months later...
ofd Newbie

ofd

Posted
Posted
Quote

Despite having a very annoying voice, this youtuber made me question my position on climate change. Any rebuttals?

So far Crowder, Mitchell and Molyneux didnt't discuss with potholer. He does a good job in representing the mistakes that lay people do in trying to refute the arguments made by climate scientists.

  • 4 weeks later...
Jsbrads Newbie

Jsbrads

Posted
Posted

First false premise in the video.

Double CO2, get huge increases in temperature.

It isn’t true. Not I don’t like that theory. Not it contradicts my theory. We have had an impact on the global CO2 in many ways, but we haven’t seen the temperature increase promised over and over again.

Second false premise:

All the mistakes in modeling were due to slight mistakes and now we have it right.

Reality, there were hundreds of things that they didn’t account for and now we know three of the things they ignored that have a huge impact on temperature according to our new best guesses, because no one is actually studying this with the intention of finding the truth, but to bolster their preconceived notions that they can now revert to that they have rationalized the errors they found in their old models.

Third false premise:

Many data sets Vs One data set

Ground based thermometers which are incredibly inaccurate and located in or near cities, when divided into groups under different names and operated by Climate Alarmists (some of whom have tried to fake data) are “many data sets” but RSS, the most sophisticated temperature sensors on or near the planet which are actually designed to measure global temperatures are somehow inherently flawed. And when mentioning a paper on why the RSS might be wrong, he completely glosses over the details like how far off is the data, what causes the error, and does the RSS agree with or not the ground based readings after correction...

Maybe 1:

On Monktons errors, okay, somewhat cherry picked, I’ll admit some real mistakes probably exist. Conflating Monkton’s errors with him being wrong on the big picture... is a logical fallacy.

Fourth and Fifth false premise:

Slight warming will melt all ice. Water vapor creates runaway warming.

No. It hasn’t. Let that sink in first. Now let me explain why it may not happen in the future either. Reality, it is currently too cold to snow at the poles. Slight warming will often increase snowing and thus create a negative feedback. As we increase the temperature slightly, more water is absorbed by the air, but some of it gets to the poles and we have been seeing an increase in ice at the poles. Some of the increases in moisture also end up in the higher atmosphere and these high level clouds block some light from reaching the planet. Cloud behavior is not well understood.

Molyneax never claimed the temperature never got warmer, merely that the system adjusted over the long term, which it has. No one is claiming the planet can’t warm. The Alarmists have been claiming for the last 25 years that we are a few years away from runaway global warming that we will never recover from.

ofd Newbie

ofd

Posted
Posted
Quote

On Monktons errors, okay, somewhat cherry picked, I’ll admit some real mistakes probably exist. Conflating Monkton’s errors with him being wrong on the big picture... is a logical fallacy.

The problem isn't that he made some mistakes out of negligence or by mistake. Rather he misrepresents studies that prove his point. Worse, you can watch hours of Monkton videos without having the slightest idea how the atmosphere works let alone the physcial properties of greenhouse gases and why they contribute to a global warming. It's the same tactic used by creationists who don't bother explaining the whole picture but rather stick to their talking points that in their opinion make their point. Not only do you learn nothing, you become actually dumber listening to those people.

  • 2 weeks later...
Jsbrads Newbie

Jsbrads

Posted
Posted

I’ll admit my post might be better than Monkton, if you can follow all the material. Monkton isn’t really following a teaching model, it is the lecture model, persuasion.

I think few public speakers educate. That’s why TED talks are unique (many of them teach you something new). Milton Friedman was an educator too. 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept