PDA

View Full Version : The man who makes Al Gore soil his own self!



LWW
06-25-2011, 03:18 PM
World class Olympic grade anti-moonbat Lord Monckton has repeatedly challenged Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... to a free and open debate on the science of man made global warming.

THIS VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6_RYAP8WA&feature=player_embedded) will clearly show why, as he discusses the topic with a member of the Greenpeace cult.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 06:27 PM
By anti-moonbat, you clearly mean, moonbat. Monckton is a fool, without any obvious expertise.

A man who also advocated for the quarantining of all HIV-infected people, iirc, from the argument of the virulence and easy transfer of HIV, when it is neither.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 06:52 PM
Epic takedown in several parts, here. (http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/06/21/climate-smackdown-lord-monckton-embarrassed-by-a-genuine-sceptic/)

Just watching the first 5 minutes shows what a charlatan the man is, misrepresenting his credentials and background.

He has a degree in classics, and one in journalism. He claims to have published peer reviewed scientific papers, which was false. He claims to have been science advisor to PM Thatcher, and that is false. He has previously claimed to be a member of the House of Lords, and they say that is false. (Wiki on the last claim)

Besides which, he evidently also believes that GW exists, man contributes, the theory of green house gasses being involved is true, and MERELY questions whether the stated likely effects are as large as claimed, and whether then it's worth trying to do costly things to avoid continuing down the GW path. (per Wiki, again)

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 08:50 PM
Can you point me to any rebuttals of the epic takedown I linked to?

I'd like to be fair, but the devastating display of the shady tactics Lord Monckton uses in transparent intellectual fraud on his oh-so-skeptical (not!) audiences who lap it up from his spoon without the slightest regard for checking his sources make this at least temporarily impossible.

Any reason to take this ass-clown the slightest bit seriously? Serious question.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 08:53 PM
As perhaps the cat's got your tongue, as they say (whatever that means, don't really know the reference), one last question:

Did you not know of Lord Monckton's manifold deceits, or had you heard of them, and simply ignored them out of blind belief and prejudice?

Or alternatively, do you know of any debunking of these debunkers, and can you defend this man's integrity, when he appears a bumbling, if erudite and convincing, fraud?

Qtec
06-26-2011, 01:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As perhaps the cat's got your tongue, as they say (whatever that means, don't really know the reference), one last question:

Did you not know of Lord Monckton's manifold deceits, or had you heard of them, and simply ignored them out of blind belief and prejudice?

Or alternatively, do you know of any debunking of these debunkers, and can you defend this man's integrity, when he appears a bumbling, if erudite and convincing, fraud? </div></div>

LOL...don't expect to hear from him any time soon. Ha

The only people who believe this quack Monckton are the one's who believe GW is a global leftist conspiracy. LOL

Talk about 'spoon fed'.

Q..........nice one. Tap

LWW
06-26-2011, 05:34 AM
If you had read Wiki you would know how foolish you now appear.

LWW
06-26-2011, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Epic takedown in several parts, here. (http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/06/21/climate-smackdown-lord-monckton-embarrassed-by-a-genuine-sceptic/)

Just watching the first 5 minutes shows what a charlatan the man is, misrepresenting his credentials and background.</div></div>

That was funny.

Qtec
06-26-2011, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you had read Wiki you would know how foolish you now appear. </div></div>

Wiki.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, public speaker,[1] former newspaper editor and hereditary peer. Formerly a member of the Conservative Party, Monckton has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence Party since June 2010.[2][3] He served in Conservative Central Office and worked for Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit during the 1980s. He also worked for The Universe, The Sunday Telegraph, Today and Evening Standard newspapers.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Monckton became known in the 1990s for his invention of the Eternity puzzle, a mathematical puzzle for which he offered a prize of one million pounds to the first person who could solve it within four years.</span>[4] In recent years he has come to public attention for holding sceptical views about anthropogenic global warming.[5][6][7][8] </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eternity is a tiling puzzle created by Christopher, Lord Monckton and launched by the Ertl Company in June 1999. Consisting of 209 pieces, it was marketed as being practically unsolveable, with a £1 million prize on offer for whoever could solve it within four years. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The prize was paid out in October 2000 for a winning solution arrived at by two mathematicians from Cambridge.</span>[ </div></div>

LMFAO


Q

Qtec
06-26-2011, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Epic takedown in several parts, here. (http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/06/21/climate-smackdown-lord-monckton-embarrassed-by-a-genuine-sceptic/)

Just watching the first 5 minutes shows what a charlatan the man is, misrepresenting his credentials and background.</div></div>

That was funny. </div></div>

It wasn't funny, it was informative. Your TOTAL lack of response is indicative.
ie, you got nothing. The guy is a quack and you believe it because you want to, despite the facts.

Q

LWW
06-26-2011, 09:24 AM
Then why doesn't Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... agree to the debate and mop the floor with him?

LWW
06-26-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It wasn't funny, it was informative. Your TOTAL lack of response is indicative.

Q </div></div>

Actually, it was spoon fed Alinskism ... demanding that statements never made be defended.

Qtec
06-26-2011, 09:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why doesn't Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... agree to the debate and mop the floor with him? </div></div>

Don't try and change the subject. Answer the reply from S. <span style='font-size: 17pt'> His first 5 min video showed your guy to be a liar and a con man and you have no come back.</span>

Q

LWW
06-26-2011, 09:52 AM
There is no need of a "COMEBACK" as what you claim happened didn't actually happen.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you had read Wiki you would know how foolish you now appear. </div></div>

I READ Wiki, where I found that the House of Lords denies his claim to be a 'non-voting' member, stating that there is no such thing, and he is not a member.

A claim Lord Monckton is cited to have made in his written biographical background to Congress, without any qualification even as to being a non-voting member, just that he was a member of 'the Upper chamber of the Parliament.'

I think lying to Congress was made a crime; perhaps he should avoid DC in the future?

But seriously, what excuse or denial or rebuttal do you have for the 20 lies as stated in the collection of videos (summarized briefly in the last one)?

Are ANY OF THESE THE SLIGHTEST BIT TRUE? And if so, in what regard?

If you'd prefer to slink ashamedly away, considering just what a titanic fraud you've believed in (evidently), you would be doing the right thing.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why doesn't Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... agree to the debate and mop the floor with him? </div></div>

In the old school form of debate, say an extended Lincoln/Douglas-style debate SERIES, this man's multiple lies and distortions could be easily refuted.

However, in what would pass for even an extended debate under today's standards, Monckton would state a 4 sentence claim, and each sentence might take Gore 10 minutes to explain why it is totally wrong.

People seem to take the wrong instinct, that something that is easily said quickly must be more right that something that takes full minutes (egad!) to explain. Few have the patience to sit still long enough for all the rebuttal time, and would presume the pithy (although sociopathic falsehoods) of a well-spoken 'LORD' to be accurate. He sounds entirely convincing, and I guess he fooled you as well.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 07:25 PM
Regarding his advice to Lady Thatcher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)

It is strange to find that after the period in which Monckton claims to have advised then-PM Minister (now-Lady) Thatcher on climate hoaxing, she then shocked the world in 1989 by announcing new funding and founding of a center for projecting climate change and its effects.

ugotda7
06-26-2011, 10:31 PM
Gore is an idiot of epic proportions. But the bigger idiots are those who buy the crap he peddles.

Qtec
06-27-2011, 01:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gore is an idiot of epic proportions. But the bigger idiots are those who buy the crap he peddles. </div></div>

Nutjob Santorum.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that. The idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — uh, is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors — El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, uh, uh, you know, moisture in the air — there’s a variety of factors that contribute to the earth warming.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>To me there is opportunity for the left — it’s a beautifully concocted scheme. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’ Just like they did in the ’70s when it was getting cooler, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it was getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.</span> </div></div>



Q

ugotda7
06-27-2011, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gore is an idiot of epic proportions. But the bigger idiots are those who buy the crap he peddles. </div></div>

Nutjob Santorum.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that. The idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — uh, is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors — El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, uh, uh, you know, moisture in the air — there’s a variety of factors that contribute to the earth warming.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>To me there is opportunity for the left — it’s a beautifully concocted scheme. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’ Just like they did in the ’70s when it was getting cooler, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it was getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.</span> </div></div>



Q </div></div>

Yep....MMGW believers are idiots. Thanks for helping out.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gore is an idiot of epic proportions. But the bigger idiots are those who buy the crap he peddles. </div></div>

Compared to Lord Monckton? Where has he stated anything accurately and completely?

I've now gone through 3 brutal smackdowns of his claims, including from multiple scientists on the record explaining why he is quite mistaken in characterizing their published papers. He still uses them after the authors have publicly explained his errors.

He uses phony quotes, in quotation marks, for his tendentious paraphrasing of or wholly unfounded 'quotes' that cannot be found anywhere.

He is a confabulist of the highest order, reaching nearly to the level of a Baron Munchausen.

If he has a case, why does he need to make it with lies, distortions, quotes that don't exist, and etc.?

And it cannot be but deliberate, since he explicitly warns people against others doing the kinds of statistical manipulations he himself is guilty of. He knows better, and must know what he's doing.

It is rare, and I cannot think of another single example, where a true case is made exclusively with such false claims, over and over again. Using falsehoods so extensively is a sign that the case is also false. QED

ugotda7
06-27-2011, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gore is an idiot of epic proportions. But the bigger idiots are those who buy the crap he peddles. </div></div>

Compared to Lord Monckton? Where has he stated anything accurately and completely?

I've now gone through 3 brutal smackdowns of his claims, including from multiple scientists on the record explaining why he is quite mistaken in characterizing their published papers. He still uses them after the authors have publicly explained his errors.

He uses phony quotes, in quotation marks, for his tendentious paraphrasing of or wholly unfounded 'quotes' that cannot be found anywhere.

He is a confabulist of the highest order, reaching nearly to the level of a Baron Munchausen.

If he has a case, why does he need to make it with lies, distortions, quotes that don't exist, and etc.?

And it cannot be but deliberate, since he explicitly warns people against others doing the kinds of statistical manipulations he himself is guilty of. He knows better, and must know what he's doing.

It is rare, and I cannot think of another single example, where a true case is made exclusively with such false claims, over and over again. Using falsehoods so extensively is a sign that the case is also false. QED </div></div>

Compared to anybody.

Climate change happens naturally. MMGW is a BS myth.

If those pushing MMGW weren't bad enough, it's those that actually buy into MMGW who deserve our pity for being as dumb as a box of rocks.

Second only to organized religion, MMGW is one of the greatest scams in the history of mankind.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 05:06 PM
Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. These are measured more precisely than ever before.

The scientists account for all the warming that these known factors should show, and there is more that remains unexplainable by those two primary methods. Leaving... what, in your opinion, if it is not anthropogenic?

An entirely unknown mechanism? Ockham's razor would suggest no. The known greenhouse factors, considering the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, is the obvious suspect here, and it... tracks... precisely the extra warmth we see over what the rest of the known factors don't account for.

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. </div></div>

You lost the debate right there because we most certainly do not.

If we did, we could build a model and run the numbers backwards and arrive at exactly what the Oit's climate was 10 years ago ... or 20 ... or 100 ... or 1,000.

We can't.

Being that the models are wrong, they are wrong.

It takes extreme mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that a flawed computer model can somehow give an accurate answer.

ugotda7
06-27-2011, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. These are measured more precisely than ever before.

The scientists account for all the warming that these known factors should show, and there is more that remains unexplainable by those two primary methods. Leaving... what, in your opinion, if it is not anthropogenic?

An entirely unknown mechanism? Ockham's razor would suggest no. The known greenhouse factors, considering the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, is the obvious suspect here, and it... tracks... precisely the extra warmth we see over what the rest of the known factors don't account for. </div></div>

No, the reverse is not true - all that has been happening is a widespread attempt to make junk science legitimate in order to fit a liberal social agenda while simultaneously attempting to drown out voices of reason. And with increasing recognition of this by the world community the tide has turned (ha, ha), common sense is winning, and this BS liberal agenda is doomed to failure.....as it justly deserves. A failure by the way reinforced in large part due to failed liberal economic policies - it's funny what happens when other people's money starts running out.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. </div></div>

You lost the debate right there because we most certainly do not.

If we did, we could build a model and run the numbers backwards and arrive at exactly what the Oit's climate was 10 years ago ... or 20 ... or 100 ... or 1,000.

We can't.

Being that the models are wrong, they are wrong.

It takes extreme mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that a flawed computer model can somehow give an accurate answer. </div></div>

We cannot accurately parse out the various effects of solar variability, volcanic-induced particulate matter in the atmosphere, aerosols from degassing, the further you back in time.

As we do not have the accuracy of modern measurements on any of these parameters, it is impossible to accurately predict back to the past. IF you want to assume the current sun activity cycles can be backtracked accurately (there is no reason that would be true), you'd still be left with trying to figure out what volcanoes were doing, and although we may know in rough terms when they erupted, how much and how long their eruptions stayed in the air would be variable according to rain, winds, and other conditions.

However, we cannot even be assured that recent historical trends for sun activity will stay their current course, as the highly unusual quiet period that was not predicted but did recently occur shows.

Now instead of arguing my points, do you really have no defense of Lord Monckton? Apparently not.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. These are measured more precisely than ever before.

The scientists account for all the warming that these known factors should show, and there is more that remains unexplainable by those two primary methods. Leaving... what, in your opinion, if it is not anthropogenic?

An entirely unknown mechanism? Ockham's razor would suggest no. The known greenhouse factors, considering the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, is the obvious suspect here, and it... tracks... precisely the extra warmth we see over what the rest of the known factors don't account for. </div></div>

No, the reverse is not true - all that has been happening is a widespread attempt to make junk science legitimate in order to fit a liberal social agenda while simultaneously attempting to drown out voices of reason. And with increasing recognition of this by the world community the tide has turned (ha, ha), common sense is winning, and this BS liberal agenda is doomed to failure.....as it justly deserves. A failure by the way reinforced in large part due to failed liberal economic policies - it's funny what happens when other people's money starts running out. </div></div>

Even noted environmental catastrophe skeptics like Dixie Lee Ray have said that OF COURSE, it's a reckless experiment without clear safety to willy-nilly allow human activity to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and that OF COURSE, working to curb that is a reasonable goal. She just doubted that it was worth a lot of money to do so (leaving open the possibility that some cheaper ways that made more economic sense would allow us to curb that rise).

What you are claiming is liberal is really conservative, conserving of things and the world as we find them, and an ideology that says changing a lot of things without knowing the results is usually a bad idea.

And I agree with that. You've made a god of money, apparently, and anything that interferes with THAT is not conservative, in your view.

Sad. Conservatism has many good qualities, and everyone should look into it.

LWW
06-28-2011, 04:44 AM
Dude ... we don't have a climate model that can accurately predict the climate change a week out.

Deal with it.

And, by your own admission, we cannot accurately predict several of the major variables ... hence the models are junk science.

LWW
06-28-2011, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. These are measured more precisely than ever before.

The scientists account for all the warming that these known factors should show, and there is more that remains unexplainable by those two primary methods. Leaving... what, in your opinion, if it is not anthropogenic?

An entirely unknown mechanism? Ockham's razor would suggest no. The known greenhouse factors, considering the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, is the obvious suspect here, and it... tracks... precisely the extra warmth we see over what the rest of the known factors don't account for. </div></div>

No, the reverse is not true - all that has been happening is a widespread attempt to make junk science legitimate in order to fit a liberal social agenda while simultaneously attempting to drown out voices of reason. And with increasing recognition of this by the world community the tide has turned (ha, ha), common sense is winning, and this BS liberal agenda is doomed to failure.....as it justly deserves. A failure by the way reinforced in large part due to failed liberal economic policies - it's funny what happens when other people's money starts running out. </div></div>

Even noted environmental catastrophe skeptics like Dixie Lee Ray have said that OF COURSE, it's a reckless experiment without clear safety to willy-nilly allow human activity to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere</div></div>

And, as has been shown before, you have zero evidence of this happening at all ... ever ... due to human causation.

ugotda7
06-28-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I'd say rather the reverse is true.

We now understand solar forcing, and planetary position forcing, and atmospheric aerosol forcing of climate change. These are measured more precisely than ever before.

The scientists account for all the warming that these known factors should show, and there is more that remains unexplainable by those two primary methods. Leaving... what, in your opinion, if it is not anthropogenic?

An entirely unknown mechanism? Ockham's razor would suggest no. The known greenhouse factors, considering the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, is the obvious suspect here, and it... tracks... precisely the extra warmth we see over what the rest of the known factors don't account for. </div></div>

No, the reverse is not true - all that has been happening is a widespread attempt to make junk science legitimate in order to fit a liberal social agenda while simultaneously attempting to drown out voices of reason. And with increasing recognition of this by the world community the tide has turned (ha, ha), common sense is winning, and this BS liberal agenda is doomed to failure.....as it justly deserves. A failure by the way reinforced in large part due to failed liberal economic policies - it's funny what happens when other people's money starts running out. </div></div>

Even noted environmental catastrophe skeptics like Dixie Lee Ray have said that OF COURSE, it's a reckless experiment without clear safety to willy-nilly allow human activity to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and that OF COURSE, working to curb that is a reasonable goal. She just doubted that it was worth a lot of money to do so (leaving open the possibility that some cheaper ways that made more economic sense would allow us to curb that rise).

What you are claiming is liberal is really conservative, conserving of things and the world as we find them, and an ideology that says changing a lot of things without knowing the results is usually a bad idea.

And I agree with that. You've made a god of money, apparently, and anything that interferes with THAT is not conservative, in your view.

Sad. Conservatism has many good qualities, and everyone should look into it. </div></div>

That is some hellified spin.....I'm impressed - but that snake oil still isn't selling.

LWW
06-28-2011, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).”</span> Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.</span>

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done.</span> Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.</span>

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions.</span> The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/910)

Qtec
06-29-2011, 12:52 AM
blah blah blah..........zzzzzzzzzzzz.

You told us Monckton- your hero- had all the answers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">World class Olympic grade anti-moonbat Lord Monckton has repeatedly challenged Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... to a free and open debate on the science of man made global warming.

<u>THIS VIDEO will clearly show why,</u> as he discusses the topic with a member of the Greenpeace cult. </div></div>

Now,<u>after S having cut your hero to shreds</u>, you want to change the subject!

What you need to do is accept the facts. Monckton has been totally discredited and another prominent GW denier Willie Soon is on the take.

Q

LWW
06-29-2011, 03:12 AM
That was funny.