The Monckton tour

March 10th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The “Climate Realists” have published a schedule of speaking engagements for prominent climate change sceptic Lord Monckton.

My position on climate change is that greenhouse gas emissions beyond doubt cause warming. There is a legitimate debate about how much warming will occur, as we do not know for sure how the rest of the very complex climatic system will respond.

But personally I don’t find Monckton a particularly useful contributor to the debate. He has a history of over-egging his claims and this rebuttal by John Abraham shows that he has quoted people out of context.

I think the biggest challenge with climate change is getting the major emitters to agree. An agreement without China, India and the US is basically worthless in environmental terms. China’s daily increase in emissions is greater than NZ’s total emissions.

Tags:

110 Responses to “The Monckton tour”

  1. Redbaiter (8,039 comments) says:

    “But personally I don’t find Monckton a particularly useful contributor to the debate.”

    Pfffttt… of course not.

    For a look a the other side of the picture, here’s some criticism of Abrahams:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/

    If you are John P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say,  complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.

    The untruths and fabrications have come back to bite him.

    Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dean Papa (782 comments) says:

    that wikipedia biography makes Monckton look like a crank. Hardly someone genuine climate change deniers should welcome promoting their cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,039 comments) says:

    No that’s right Dean, we should let communists like you choose who we should elect to speak for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. OneTrack (2,838 comments) says:

    Dean, who wrote the wikipedia biography?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    I thought there were a few truths in the Aussie TV interview with Monckton under the pretended assumption that he was a Sacha Baron Cohen character: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w833cAs9EN0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (2,838 comments) says:

    “He has a history of over-egging his claims…”. – and the pro-global warming side of the argument haven’t done that at all.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rg (201 comments) says:

    over egging makes me think of made up hockey sticks and bullshit films.
    There are two sides to any debate but the tragedy is that the NZ media will ignore Monckton while having promoted Gore’s bullshit.
    His comments will be censored by a media which on this subject anyway is not worthy of the description of 4th estate.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    that wikipedia biography makes Monckton look like a crank.

    That’s because Wikipedia has long since been hijacked by thuggish alarmists.

    The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history…RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles…His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Monckton’s position is that CO2 should cause about 1 degree of warming for a doubling of CO2. His economic position is that we should do nothing about mitigating CO2 emissions.

    He is easy to lampoon because of his somewhat eclectic ideas on other issues, such as AIDS and cancer cures, and his rather unfortunate dress sense at times.

    However, his scientific and economic views are also held by a lot of other more scientifically and economically qualified people.
    For example, Richard Lindzen on the science, and to some degree Richard Tol on the economics.

    The climate activists like to latch onto Monckton suggesting that all climate sceptics are like him, which they are not

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kimble (4,417 comments) says:

    STOP READING HERE!

    There will be nothing in this thread that stands any chance of changing your mind, so why bother?

    Go play with your kids instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Furthermore, I take anything John Abraham says with a grain of salt. Most of his counterarguments are strawman, which Monckton produced a series of video rebuttals to, if you can stay awake long enough.

    A rather more interesting debate took part at the Oxford Union recently, which you can read about here

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/9/lindzen-at-the-oxford-union.html

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    There will be nothing in this thread that stands any chance of changing your mind, so why bother?

    Good point. There are those that read papers and understand arguments, and then there is the warmist creed, who have the intelligence of poultry and are presumably the ones hitting the red buttons

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. JMS (314 comments) says:

    I fully agree with Monckton on climate change.
    Unfortunately he often refers to god in his speeches, which undermines his argument.
    Belief in man-made global-warming, just like belief in god, is a religious concept and has no basis in reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    That’s because Wikipedia has long since been hijacked by thuggish alarmists.

    I’d go with “built for” rather than “hijacked by”. There are fairly solid links from Wikipedia to Wikileaks to Cass Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration programme (DNS records, pro-UK/USA/Israel bias).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ross Nixon (612 comments) says:

    JMS, Monckton is correct about so-called climate change. So what if he mentions a non-climate related topic; God? That doesn’t impact on the veracity of his arguments on climate. There is no overlap.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Oh – David – David.

    Youve got to do some reading. Really

    1. There was no CO2 involved in the little ice age or the medievil warm period.

    2. for 3 days after 9/11 the skies over USA were empty of planes. Within 36 hours the temperature across the whole country dropped 2 degrees. And them when the planes started up again – temperature went up.

    Now it wasnt a change in the CO2 level.

    It was a change in the water vapour level.

    The trouble with the CO2 believers is that it will take HUNDREDS of years to aletr anything even if we stiopped using oil tomorrow. You have to plan for the change and not hope that if we stop using oil things will get better.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Right_Wing_Dad (62 comments) says:

    On the contrary, anyone willing to debate climate change is a useful contributor. If only Mann, Gore et al were willing to debate their position.

    The biggest challenge with climate change now will be convincing the useful idiots and true believers that there is nothing to worry about, and that even if there was limiting CO2 emissions is the most ineffective and costly way to tackle it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (8,039 comments) says:

    Note how Monckton is being personally destroyed?

    Why?

    I’ll tell you.

    Because he speaks truth, and in any world where leftists reign supreme, truth is forbidden, and if you speak it, you will be personally destroyed.

    Not debated, not considered, not any of those things, for the left know well enough they have no argument against truth. Its like a wooden stake through their heart.

    THE LEFT ARE TRYING TO PERSONALLY DESTROY MONCKTON BECAUSE HE SPEAKS TRUTH.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    To hold the belief that the ‘chimneysweeps’ should be put in charge of the ENTIRE economy by way of legislating anything and everything that literaly ‘moves’ – is lunacy, marxist, and more than anything else – fucken backward!

    At .003 % of the atmoshere, or 3/100ths of 1%, any increase in CO2 can be mitigated against by planting more trees.

    It’s that simple!

    Chimneysweeps should not be a political force, but rather, relegated to the dustbin of history! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. rouppe (945 comments) says:

    My opinion is simply that nz should take all the energy and money being spent on climate change, and instead spend it on water quality and management.

    For clarity this does not include allowing water rights to be part of any treaty settlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross12 (1,284 comments) says:

    I believe his current talks cover the agenda 21 issue as much as anything to with climate change.

    DPF — this whole issue more political ( and some would say more about money) than emissions level and so called science. You only have to look at Germany. Suddenly the penny dropped last year that their solar and wind investments would not work so they are very busy building 23 new coal fired power stations. There all sorts of examples where energy policies have been derailed by the big scare. Just watch for major issues in the UK next winter as they allow the EU to dictate the closure of 4 power stations.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. TheContrarian (1,082 comments) says:

    Monckton is a crank and a fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ross Nixon (612 comments) says:

    I see TheContrarian logic in that last assertion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    The lies in the Monckton CV would mean he would be fired from any job he obtained. Or would prevent him obtaining any job with any organisation that checked out the CV.

    The question for “Lord” Monckton by local media is why detract from what you are doing by making personal claims that are not true? Follow up question – are you trying to show that those who want to believe what you say will ignore such things because that is what fawning followers do?

    The practice is common in religion where the cult leader is clearly a hypocrit – standing up for righteous truth while lying about his personal credentials.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    DPF seems a bit confused about what the issue is here. If it was certain that co2 causes warming (it is not) then it does not prove that mans tiny contribution is responsible. It is the same thing with “climate change”. It is well established that climate changes. The most radical and rapid changes have occurred before modern society existed, or even humans. There is no evidence that man is suddenly deciding the worlds climate outcomes.

    It is really inexcusable that DPF of all people, who has seen the evidence against AGW, should maintain belief in it. I guess it is those few remaining and confused believers that Monckton is targeting.

    Meanwhile the IPCC is slowly backing down from their absurd claims and the climate stubbornly refuses to warm. Given the entire lack of evidence and the failed predictions, I am left wondering what it would take to change a warmists mind. Clearly they are immune to facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    The lies in the Monckton CV would mean he would be fired from any job he obtained. Or would prevent him obtaining any job with any organisation that checked out the CV.

    His lies are legion.

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (8,039 comments) says:

    As I said, he must be destroyed personally, and AS USUAL, the same old incoherent left wing cowards line up with the same old Stalinist strategies and the same old smears and false allegations.

    Tried and sentenced and hung in the usual left wing kangaroo court, for the crime of sedition.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. southtop (263 comments) says:

    Over egging wtf
    Michael Mann et al
    Gore and the bull shit movie but buy property on San Francisco waterfront
    Check out William Connolley and the reported 5428 alterations to the ‘accurate new age font of all knowledge’ Wikipedia
    Best scam since ……….. You can fill in the gaps. Taxing CO2, a chemical composition plants rely on is almost the perfect answer for statists. I await a tax on the air I breath ……oh crap

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I await a tax on the air I breath ……oh crap

    You forgot animal farts.

    Sometimes it is helpful to sit back, take a deep breath, and look at things with fresh eyes. If you were to tell people a few years ago that animal farts would be taxed, because some weathermen said they are causing the world to end and the only way to save ourselves was to revert to global communism, people would think you mad. Yet take at look at what is here and now…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    This beats watching the telly tonight and offers a great summary of the issues.


    The great global warming swindle – Full version

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, to repeat important advice

    1. breath through the nose when entering the place of the rule of nations
    2. it is too early to tell what form of human government works best
    3. it is presumptious to opine on whether a policy works during the lifetime of any government
    4. the best science is the science that stands the test of time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Tom Barker (133 comments) says:

    Lord Mocckton is a clown and a foolish exhibitionist. As a lifelong atheist, I have more respect for his views on religion than I do for the nonsense he spouts on climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ross12 (1,284 comments) says:

    You can call Lord Monckton all the names you like but this is an example of the crazy nonsense he is arguing against

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290444/Madness-How-pay-billions-electricity-bills-Britains-biggest-power-station-switch-coal-wood-chips–wont-help-planet-jot.html

    Look at the area of forest that needs to be felled to suppliy this.

    NB. The environmentalists have successfully argued for the exclusion of burning wood pellets being exempt from the provisions in the UK Clean Act

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, I agree with most of what you posted at 7:04 but consider it a bit – off topic – as this post is about climate, not political systems… or is it ?

    A number of times I have asked for the solution to AGW, if it were real (it is not). You remain the only person who has offered a solution. Nothing even from Griff.

    Your solution was to taken money from rich countries, by tax, and give it to poor ones. In your face Socialism was your solution. At least you have the honesty to stand up and say it, unlike most others.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Yeah Monckton is so extreme. What a crazy. Not like those warmists”

    I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

    Climate-change skepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist.

    “Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard, who compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South.”

    No “over-egging” there !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, two things – my post was just to relate the comment about the French Revolutiioon and the Chinese cycnic who opined it was too early to tell whether this was a good change. On AGW climate change – it is too early to tell.

    As to having a solution to it, no – my preference for a carbon tax on traded goods is just as a market tool to ease transition to a lower carbon use economy. And while it would increase the consumption price of a good produced using carbon (and those in the west do most of the consuming), it also advantages the West in producing goods (using less carbon to do so than the Chinese etc). So while there would be a transfer of the money collected by the carbon tax to investment in new tech development (this occurs in the west) and to the building of renewable energy for Third World (replacing some existing aid programmes with this hand up), it is not really that socialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UrbanNeocolonialist (236 comments) says:

    If you believe in AGW then you should be pushing like crazy for nuclear power, because renewables just aren’t going to cut it.

    If you don’t believe in AGW then you should be pushing like crazy for nuclear power, because it is the only long term solution to our energy needs, and the sooner and harder we start to lean on it the cheaper and safer it will become.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    UrbanNeocolonialist, the AGW industry was started by those wishing to promote Nuclear power as a -save- alternative to organic fuels like coal and oil. Watch the doco I posted above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    We can do renewables here without nuclear power – once the smelter goes we just need improved capacity from the South Island, in any case the conflict will be with farmers who will want some of the water if droughts become more regular.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, taxing the hard working and smart and giving the money to the stupid and lazy will not change co2 levels. As the poor get richer they will demand all of those things the evil Westerners have. Just like the Chinese and Indians are doing right now. You really want to cut human co2 levels ? Then STOP giving handouts to Africa, not increase then.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    the conflict will be with farmers

    SPC, are you trolling ?

    The green movement opposes every hydro power station. They oppose all proposals to generate energy.They even stopped a wind farm being built in the South.

    Where do you get off blaming farmers ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, leaving it to the market means the transition from available carbon to unavailable carbon is too acute. Lack of a carbon tax advantages those who pollute when producing. Renewable energy in Africa reduces CO2.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, “conflict will be” – future tense.

    because of the increasing amount of drought farmers will need more irrigation and more stored water to get through summer months. This means that when the smelter shuts down, the spare hydro energy goes north and or some of the water is used to supply local farming.

    Competing uses, means conflict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, there is no “increasing amount of drought”.

    Nor is there increased extreme weather. Even if there was, it does not prove AGW one iota.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, yeah sure climate change does not prove AGW, but it was predicted as part of global warming.

    A 70 year drought is not evidence of a more regular droughts of itself (worse than 2007/2008 already) but if these occur then there will be contest for any spare hydro capacity in the South Island. And if this source is available for the North Island power use then maybe North Island farmers will seek to use North Island hydro water for farming in the Waikato etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Kea, yeah sure climate change does not prove AGW, but it was predicted as part of global warming.

    If so it is the only prediction that has been right. Of course it was right because droughts and extreme weather are normal, so it was an easy prediction to make: climatic cycles will be normal, with some extreme events from time to time.

    I predict dogs will bark, which proves the existence of Aliens from the planet Zqwo. See, we can all play that game :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Kea, global warming can come from other than AGW – global warming from whatever source would have an impact on climate.

    Climate change involves a break from the usual patterns of weather and could include both more regular drought and more regular heavy downpours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, I should explain that I am not convinced by AGW theory. That is rather a different thing to denying global warming or climate change. Climate is always changing, its normal. I am happy to also admit that mans activities impact climate to some extent. What I do not agree with is the scale of change predicted by the warmists. If those massive changes occur it is not caused by our co2 emissions but by natural forces.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I think the biggest challenge with climate change is getting the major emitters to agree

    No, the biggest challenge is for the masses to wake up and reject the utterly foolish notion that it’s ok diverting hundreds of billions of dollars to a ‘problem’ which is nothing more than a theory fails, and one that stubbornly fails to be validated by hard data.

    Climate change is a gigantic scientific Ponzi scheme powered by confirmation bias. However unlike conventional Ponzi schemes, the cost of joining is paid for by non-participants via taxes, and the participants happily bank their research funding, travel, political leverage many of them knowing just how corrupt the entire process is.

    No matter, it’s unwinding at an increasing rate. It’s going to be fun watching the hypocritical run for the cover of desperate, lame excuses when their ardent evangalism of the faith is exposed to the sunlight.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    global warming can come from other than AGW

    No shit! 4.6 billion years of continuous, and at times drastic climatic change and you’re prepared to concede that human emissions might not be the only cause?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. marcw (238 comments) says:

    The climate is what it is – so what caused the last period of drought 70 years ago? What do we mean by “more regular” drought or heavy downpours? There were 4 storms that hit the East coast of USA in the years 1959 -60 that were greater in intensity than the one storm (Sandy) that occurred last year. So what caused them? I don’t believe it was simply AGW or anything to do with mankind last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    DPF’s position will change when the valiant, firm and courageous National Party does so.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    krazykiwi, the context was whether there might be more droughts – that there might be is not dependent on AGW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    At .003 % of the atmosphere, or 3/100ths of 1%, any increase in CO2 can be mitigated against by planting more trees.

    It’s that simple!

    Chimneysweeps should not be a political force, but rather, relegated to the dustbin of history! :cool:

    Nite nite :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    marcw

    If droughts become more regular we will know about it. As a farming economy we won’t be able to avoid it. The 2007/8 drought pushed us into recession and this one will take >.5% plus off GDP.

    http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    What may impact on global climate is the loss of rainforest in the Congo, Indonesia and the Amazon. Not just for the AGW impact but because of their import to weather systems.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    What may impact on global climate is the loss of rainforest in the Congo, Indonesia and the Amazon.

    You mean all the millions of acres cleared to grow bio-fuels as an off shoot of the AGW industry ?

    It is not being cleared for food production, as the reverse has occurred. Good food growing land is being used to grow bio-fuels, driving up food prices and causing the poor to starve in many places. Well enough of the good points… often it uses more energy to create bio-fuel than it produces.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kimble (4,417 comments) says:

    TOLD YOU SO!

    Give this post a thumbs down if you have in any way changed your mind on the issue and then post a comment to explain how and why.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    It is interesting, as always, to witness the followers of the scriptures according to Lord Mann and Lord Hansen to come up with nothing to add to.the debate other than personal attacks, smears and links to cretinous videos made by smug left wing students.

    The question, as always is what is the sensitivity of the climate to co2?

    Do we need to sacrifice our economy to the great green god?

    When the lights go out in the UK within the next few years, and old people freeze to death will the warmist creed be another fashion accessory like Gay Marriage, or will these people suddenly find another trendy cause to hang their duffel coats on?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ross Nixon (612 comments) says:

    Probably full implementation of Agenda21.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. axeman (251 comments) says:

    DPF: “My position on climate change is that greenhouse gas emissions beyond doubt cause warming”

    Plus these :-)

    http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/625682_422643677826334_625485293_n.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. wreck1080 (3,820 comments) says:

    I’ve changed my mind in the last year and believe humans are probably causing global warming.

    We already know humans can seriously affect the atmosphere (acid rain, ozone hole). If you look at the earth from space, the atmosphere is a thin layer relative to the size of the planet. Think about all those factories / vehicles and volcanos spewing gases into the atmosphere.

    We live in an incredibly fragile environment when using a geological time scale.

    But, scientists do not know what will happen in the long term and what self-regulating effects will occur. eg, co2 may feed oxygen producing organisms causing co2 to drop. Increasing temperatures cause more surface water evaporation and this results in more rainfall/snowfall across larger continents turning deserts into arable land.

    Maybe global warming trips an climate trigger which leads to an ice-age?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    You’re not alone wreck10800.

    Locklear commented that “People are surprised sometimes” that he highlights climate change — despite an ability to discuss a wide-range of threats, from cyber-war to the North Koreans. However, it is the risks — from natural disasters to long-term sea-level rise threats to Pacific nations that has his deepest attention.

    “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. hj (6,756 comments) says:

    @SPC

    Ye alpine fault great earthquake will stuff your hydro due to aggradation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    This says it all
    kea
    “I do not agree with is the scale of change predicted by the warmists. If those massive changes occur it is not caused by our co2 emissions but by natural forces.”

    Even WHEN the temperature goes up as predicted by science KEA WILL STILL NOT BELIEVE The science.
    Nutters :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Global warming ended 16 years ago. the link is available

    It’s just a UN excuse to extort funds from Govts by overtaxing their citizens

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. flipper (3,847 comments) says:

    Dear David,

    A few pertinent observations appear to be in order:

    1. You are obviously intelligent, possessed of a reasonably good (Otago) education (including a Phud from the University Of The World), and skilled at opinion polling and analysis. But there is an old saying in relation to gratuitous comment on matters on which one knows little:” It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be a fool, than to open it and prove that you are.” That very much applies to your comments on AGW and Monckton.

    2. The Monckton itinerary was sent you by email several weeks ago. One hoped that you might recognise that you could actually learn something by meeting and debating with Christopher Monckton.

    3. Last October, that prize, pompous fool of a red melon MP, Kennedy Graham made a snide comment about Monckton. His email to the Outside The Beltway Group, drew this response from OTB member, Rupert Wyndham in the UK:

    4. “Mr. Graham

    You say: “Many people oppose any debate with Lord Monckton on the grounds that the intellectual merit of a discussion would suffer. I have no comment to make on that judgement.”

    You have just commented. Let’s too get to the real reason for the Greens’ avoidance of open debate – er, with Monckton or anyone else. It is that, on the few occasions on which they have summoned up the courage to do so, they have invariably been eviscerated. I was at one such debate myself in London, involving such illuminati from your side as Prof. Mike Hulme. It was embarrassing albeit, from my perspective, an enjoyable example of shadenfreude.

    Your comment relating to the ‘precautionary principle’ is illuminating. It has always seemed to me that the ‘principle’ is a rather sanctimonious contrivance that allows people of your claimed persuasion to continue to engage in the delightful task of self-preening without the need to temper this indulgence with any obligation to think. I make no comment on what might have been the condition of mankind had this foolishness prevailed throughout human history.

    RW

    PS In passing, I use the word ‘claimed’ because, to be frank, I do not believe that it is intellectually possible to promote Green claims with honesty of purpose.”

    5. Care to try a round or two with Chris Monckton, David?

    6. With apologies, DPF, for the ad hominems.

    Sincerely

    Flipper

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. hj (6,756 comments) says:

    Monckton needs to give the world a lesson in critical thinking eh!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. EAD (847 comments) says:

    In the 70’s it was the threat of a new ice age and when that turned out to be a false dawn, we were suddenly warned that it was in fact “global warming” that was the new bogeyman as warnings of “50 million climate refugees” (remember that one) would be caused by rising sea levels. Now that the prophesies of doom have failed to pass we have the new catch all phrase “climate change”. The only evidence based rebuttal of this would be if there was climate sameness which is a nonsense.

    Rain – climate change
    Droughts – climate change
    Snow – climate change
    Storms – climate change
    Hot weather – climate change
    Cold weather – climate change

    If people were to be open-minded about the evidence then they would soon reach the conclusion that “climate change” is a scam perpetrated by vested interests, but that would mean that the Government and the media have been lying to them. This is a leap that most people aren’t prepared to make.

    If you accept that the institutions that you grew up believing have been misleading you about “global warming “climate change” then what else have they been lying about? Everything that you thought you knew is now open to question.
    Most people would prefer to take the blue pill rather than see reality for what it is. Even though deep down they suspect that there is something fishy going on, it isn’t worth turning their whole world upside down over.

    The warmists know this perfectly well. That’s why it’s so important to present one consistent media story to the public. Any suggestion that the matter is open to discussion will move the subject out of people’s “world view” into a realm where they are invited to make up their own minds – and then they will come to the “wrong” conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. flipper (3,847 comments) says:

    Bullshit buzz words hj

    Those that really know the subject are laughing.
    And Mann (for example) is now regretting bringing suit against Tim Ball (Mann wants to drop it, but under Canadian law it must go to trial).

    Sooner or later the reasonably sensible warmistas (like DPF) will realise that they are advocating and driving the same sort of con that the Club of Rome (simikar membership also) espoused 30+ years ago.

    Only those with a financial interest (like NIWA and academia in NZ), or a red melon for a brain, sill believe the AGW driven CC crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. EAD (847 comments) says:

    Monckton is one of those who have the courage to question the received orthodoxy imparted on us by corrupt governments and an obedient main stream media.

    John Ansell is another with his campaign that is shining a huge light on the lies and misinformation that has created the treaty gravy train monster.

    And of course the biggest lie of them all that few politicians with the exception of Ron Paul and now Beppe Grillo have dared ask: What is money?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-10/why-central-planners-are-so-scared-italys-beppe-grillo

    For daring to question the wisdom of our times, these brave individuals are very rarely debated in an adult manner but rather called deniers, racists, bigots, cranks, crazy when in reality, the Emperor has no clothes.

    It is much easier to be a government shill, get cushy jobs and sell your soul but remember that as Edmund Burke once said, “all it takes for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Griff (4,437) Says:
    March 11th, 2013 at 9:44 am
    This says it all
    kea
    “I do not agree with is the scale of change predicted by the warmists. If those massive changes occur it is not caused by our co2 emissions but by natural forces.”

    Even WHEN the temperature goes up as predicted by science KEA WILL STILL NOT BELIEVE The science.
    Nutters

    What do you mean “WHEN” Griff [your emphasis] ?

    That is nothing less than an admission that the temperature has not gone up, as predicted. A very different claim to all your other posts on the topic. Why are you suddenly telling the truth, are you afraid of Monckton ?

    Your post continues with a further prediction of what you predict I will think if the temperature does go up . Was that prediction based on a “model” too Griff ?

    There is a link between co2 and warming, but not the one the warmists claim. co2 increases after the climate warms, not the other way around. Common sense really, as co2 is organic and decay of organic matter increases as things warm up, releasing co2 into the atmoshere, which is used by plants. Its called the, carbon cycle, Griff. Look it up sometime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Even WHEN the temperature goes up as predicted by science KEA WILL STILL NOT BELIEVE The science. Nutters

    That’ll be the same “science” which promised ever-increasing warming over the last two decades.

    Griff is like the Christian patiently waiting for the promised return of his Messiah.

    Keep the faith, Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    wat, complete with a global flood, plagues of locusts, famine, pestilence and rather a lot else. ( http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm )

    Of course all this can be avoided if we repent our evil capitalist ways.

    He really does give atheists a bad name that boy. To be fair, you try and smoke that much weed and still keep your head together.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Yoza (1,684 comments) says:

    “That’ll be the same “science” which promised ever-increasing warming over the last two decades.”

    You mean these observations which clearly demonstrate increasing warming?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    It is a more than a little pathetic watching the parrots of those entities that spent vast amounts attempting to discredit the observable phenomena of global warming continue to push denialist line. You denialists are becoming a comical distraction, I mean what sort of deluded nut would use Monkton as a credible source.

    Just out of curiosity, can any of you fanatics provide a link to any successful law suits Monckton has pursued against anyone he claims has libelled him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Yoza, you mean this “parrot” ?

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office

    Are you saying you do not agree with the retired Indian railroad engineer who heads the IPCC ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Yoza (1,684 comments) says:

    “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office” The trouble is, Kea, when I put that phrase into a search engine all I get is a bunch of those loopy denialist sites quoting the same sentence without providing any links to the interview/speech/lecture/article where the comment was made, …there is no context. It seems quite an incredible claim when 2012 saw a record Arctic ice melt and also considering ” [g]lobal surface temperature records stretch[ing] all the way back to 1880. September marked the 331st straight month with above average temperatures, and the 36th straight September with a global temperature above the 20th century average.”

    I would be interested though if you could provide a link to the entire Pachauri interview/lecture or whatever it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    You mean these observations which clearly demonstrate increasing warming?

    No mate, the chart you link to is historical. I mean the recent observations which show no statistically significant temperature change for at least 16 years.

    It varies according to data-set. Checking for statistical significance:

    On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)
    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)
    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)
    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)
    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)
    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/05/has-global-warming-stalled-now-includes-january-data/#more-81357

    These are the facts.

    I’m not sure how recognising facts makes one a “denier.” Surely the reverse is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    It seems quite an incredible claim when 2012 saw a record Arctic ice melt

    Firstly, why do you mention only Arctic ice? Why don’t you mention the Antarctic?

    We both know why, don’t we. It’s because you are cherry-picking. Despite your pretence at an interest in the science you are in fact trying to pass off a fraud here.

    Why would you do that?

    What is the point of coming here and lying to people?

    Seriously.

    The mentality of people like you, who have absolutely no interest in science and objective facts, is scary.

    And what is the ice doing in the Arctic now, Yoza?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    Hmm. I don’t see anything scary there. Do you?

    Off course, it is polar temperatures we should really be interested in, since enhanced polar warming is a fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. If we detect it then that’s evidence in favour of the theory, and if we don’t then the theory has been disproved.

    Is there enhanced polar warming, Yoza?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    No mate, the chart you link to is historical. I mean the recent observations which show no statistically significant temperature change for atleast 16 years.

    WTF?

    Wat

    Then list the trends that are less than his sixteen years as evidence for his assertion.

    No bad Wat cherry pick data

    For more careful analysis would take the differences in the series and explore why they happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The trouble is, Kea, when I put that phrase into a search engine all I get is a bunch of those loopy denialist sites

    Yoza, yeah I am having trouble with my search engine too. When I check out your quotes all I get are the self serving rantings of alarmists who refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence under their noses, while raking in generous salaries for chanting that the world is ending.

    Funny that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/8406712/Continued-drought-support-unsustainable-English

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Yoza (1,684 comments) says:

    “Firstly, why do you mention only Arctic ice? Why don’t you mention the Antarctic?”

    “The ice sheet covering West Antarctica has warmed twice as fast as expected — 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) since 1958, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.” “The ice sheet covering West Antarctica has warmed twice as fast as expected — 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) since 1958, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.”

    “Yoza, yeah I am having trouble with my search engine too. When I check out your quotes all I get are the self serving rantings of alarmists who refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence under their noses,…”

    The graph I linked to comes from NASA and the ‘alarmist quote’ is reliant on data courtesy of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Yoza (1,684 comments) says:

    (I’m not sure why my link was so long)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    The principle line of disagreement between skeptics and alarmists is ECS.
    The majority of alarmists currently assert the central estimate is 3 deg C and includes net positive feedbacks.
    Sketpics assert net feedbacks are negative and the central estimate is less than half that (1.5 deg C or less).
    Monckton’s estimate is 2 deg F (about 1.2 deg C).

    The rest of the arguments are chaff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    You don’t appear to know very much about this issue.

    Apart from the small area of the Western peninsula the vast mass of the Antarctic has a flat or slightly decreased temperature.

    Griff himself posted some links providing evidence of this fact (assuming you are not Griff, which you might well be. He seems childish enough to play with sock-puppets.)

    Antarctic sea ice recently reached a record winter maximum extent.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html

    Clearly the slightly reduced ice is in the Arctic is not evidence at all of any global phenomenon.

    There is no enhanced warming at the poles. Nor is there any enhanced warming in the troposphere, the other signature of anthropogenic warming. These facts prove that the 20 years of warming starting around 1980 (because that’s the only post-war warming) was not caused by anthropogenic CO2.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    Well done right now
    All you need to do now is acknowledge the alarmist are the experts.
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    The alarmists are fraudulent liars who would create any results which ensure their funding stays intact.
    “homogenization” anyone ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    Conspirowhacky anyone

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” – Phil Jones, UEA

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest (IPCC) report? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” – Phil Jones, UEA

    “We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.” – Phil Jones, UEA

    “Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” – Phil Jones, UEA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    Well done referring to stolen emails that have been examined and the scientists exonerated eight times.
    eight times denial :lol:
    Conspiracy Thinking.
    No evidence that is against your claims stands. all evidence no matter how flimsy negates global warming.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3964.1
    http://www.andywightman.com/docs/metoffice_climatepaper.pdf
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1227-6
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    “It is a more than a little pathetic watching the parrots of those entities that spent vast amounts attempting to discredit the observed measurement of warming and continue to push the alarmist line. You alarmists are becoming a comical distraction, I mean what sort of deluded nut would use Hansen and/or Mann as a credible source. ”

    There you go Yoza, fixed it for you. I mean seriously what sort of fuckwit uses GISS as an accurate measure of temperature when the margin of error is so great for land based Stevenson Screens.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    Griff
    I hear those panels are good at exonerating child molestors too. And still you continue with an appeal to authority. It just makes me laugh seeing what a gullible moron you are.
    Run back to SKS for your circle jerk and group think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    I hear those panels…..
    link please

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism

    Techniques and rhetoric
    [edit] Astroturfing

    Heavy use of astroturf: When a scientific consensus becomes apparent, corporations bankroll experts for hire to spread propaganda through front groups. These are often established think tanks or ones set up for the express purpose of denialism, often having Orwellian names like “Science and Environmental Policy Project” or “Friends of Science.” These projects tend to fund “research” by the few remaining contrarian scientists who stand against the general consensus along with “policy experts,” sometimes employing generous amounts of credential-fudging. This is sometimes mockingly referred to as the “denier-industrial complex.”[4] One study found that over 90% of books published in the past two decades espousing “environmental skepticism” were published by conservative think tanks.[5] ExxonMobil has played a large role in funding denialist think tanks and political initiatives.[6]
    Use of said front groups to publish their “research” rather than going through the academic peer review process and heavy use of PR tactics and FUD campaigns. (See also uncertainty tactic.)
    Lobbyist groups buying politicians to vote against environmental regulations and hype their propaganda. This can also involve regulatory capture and the use of “soft money” to help stack governmental regulatory and scientific organizations with industry-friendly “experts” (e.g., Dubya’s suppression of climate science.)
    Greenwashing and promotion of dubious “solutions” like “clean coal.” Some of the really cranky types will hype abiotic oil.
    Use of SLAPP suits against environmental groups and scientists.

    [edit] Stereotyping

    Conflating actual environmental problems with the nature woo and true alarmism peddled by some environmental groups (e.g., aspartame scares, rejection of GM crops as “Frankenfoods”).
    Conflating all environmentalists with dirty effin’ hippies, Luddites, or hard greens like Pentti Linkola. This generally involves representing them as a “Gaia worshiping cult” or representing environmentalism as a “secular religion.” This tactic works especially well for propagandizing to the religious right and social conservatives, as environmental concerns can be portrayed as a bogeyman that will supplant Christianity. This can also play on the belief that god will save us from environmental disaster or that the end is nigh. Creationist propaganda organs like the Discovery Institute have also hopped on board the climate denial bandwagon.
    Representing conservation as merely leftist ideology (breaking irony meters for those who remember who instituted the Environmental Protection Agency). This involves conflating ideologies like eco-socialism with environmentalism as a whole — environmentalism equals socialism, communism, Marxism, etc. This also helps to appeal to conservatives who enjoy hippie-punching and old farts that forgot the Cold War ended years ago.
    Attempting to tie environmental advocates to some evil plot by ecoterrorist outfits.
    Any environmental regulations will most assuredly destroy the economy forever.
    Painting environmentalists as evil misanthropes and “environmental classists.” Apparently, they are also all busy-bodies who just want to micromanage your life.[7]
    Common snarl words: Alarmist, eco-fascism, eco-imperialism, eco-Marxism, enviro-Nazi, enviro-weenie, warmist, watermelon.

    [edit] Frame-flipping

    Ad hominem attacks on scientists, e.g. “Michael Mann and the CRU used ‘tricks’ to ‘hide the decline’” or “Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler!”
    Framing deniers as objective whistle-blowers working against the “corrupt” peer-review process and scientific institutions. This often involves a heaping helping of persecution complex and creationist-style platitudes like “politicization of science,” “the science isn’t settled,” “academic freedom,” “release the data,” and “teach the controversy.”
    The above tactic also has the advantage of making deniers seem like level-headed skeptics. Who could object to “more research” or “considering uncertainties”?
    Representing environmental advocates as always wrong, always. Expect to see Paul Ehrlich’s failed predictions cited repeatedly. This often also involves recycling earlier works of denialism, e.g. “The enviro-Nazis were wrong about DDT, now they’re wrong about global warming!”
    Toxic sludge is good for you! CO2 is plant food! DDT will eradicate malaria forever! The really cranky radiation hormesis types like Art Robinson take this to ridiculous extremes: Nuclear waste is good for you!
    Use of the terms “junk science” for real science that will inconvenience industry and “sound science” for bullshit. Steve Milloy’s “Junk Science” site has helped to promote this usage.
    Use of the “science was wrong before” gambit, especially if said gambit draws on previous denialist tracts to claim that science was “wrong” about something it actually wasn’t.[8]

    [edit] Conspiracy theories

    Hard right conspiracy theorists also view environmentalism as a front for any number of the following:[9]

    A communist takeover
    Creation of a police state
    The New World Order/the United Nations/the North American Union
    Pagan/Satanic cults
    Population control

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    griff:
    “Well done right now
    All you need to do now is acknowledge the alarmist are the experts.”

    Pfft – none of the alarmists’ predictions have come close, so they’re in clear violation of the scientific method.

    Where’s the missing heat boy? Where’s the hot-spot boy? Go fetch…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    Actually read the seven paper posted above RN
    you talk shit
    seems the trends are getting more emphatic
    AGW is real and is getting worse.
    If you link to denial sites you get….. denial….. as rational wiki points out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    Where’s the missing hot-spot griff?

    And you do realise rational-wiki is a joke don’t you? You fell for it huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    “AGW… is getting worse”
    Oh dear, what denial.

    “Where’s the missing heat boy? Where’s the hot-spot boy? Go fetch…”
    Quite so. Fetch puppy fetch. In Griffs case this means run off to SKS, look in the “toolbox” for deniers and cut and paste it back here.pant pant slobber

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    I like this from rational wiki

    These projects tend to fund “research” by the few remaining contrarian scientists who stand against the general consensus along with “policy experts,” sometimes employing generous amounts of credential-fudging. This is sometimes mockingly referred to as the “denier-industrial complex.

    Monckton is a known proponent of bullshiting his credentials.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.

    I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

    Three times lair pants on fire :lol: Thats OK the redneck rubes that eat his brand of malarky are easy sheepie to fleece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    AGW is real and is getting worse.

    Hmm. Even arch warmist James Hansen has conceded that there has been a decade of no increase:

    The 5-year year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

    And as we know, Pachauri the head of the IPCC does not dispute 17 years of no warming.

    Are they “deniers”, Griff?

    Oh dear. The wheels really are coming off aren’t they mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    I like this from rational wiki

    How RationalWiki works

    It’s best to think of RationalWiki as a bunch of drunken skeptics down the pub pointing at bullshit and loudly shouting “BULLSHIT!” and then returning in the morning to add their references, maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. All_on_Red (1,490 comments) says:

    Its big oil!!!! Its all their fault. They are behind all the deniers/ sarc
    You conspiracy theorist you Griff- what a cute little puppy

    Rational Wiki AND Sks- wow. What next? Dr Suess?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    Oh good, he’s gone looking for the missing hot-spot. Good puppy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Griff (7,016 comments) says:

    And as we know, Pachauri the head of the IPCC does not dispute 17 years of no warming

    Nutters have been asked repeatedly by more than one poster to reproduce this quote
    Other than the link to an opinion piece in the Australian.
    You have already proven that there has been warming at seventeen years did Pachauri lie?
    :lol:
    You nutters crack me up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    No hot-spot? Bad dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Yoza (1,684 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,456) Says:
    March 12th, 2013 at 8:23 am: “Yoza, You don’t appear to know very much about this issue.”

    Then to ‘prove’ your point you post a link which demonstrates the exact opposite of the argument you are attempting to maintain: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html

    “Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate.

    “Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world,” Parkinson said. “That’s true even if overall the system is warming.” Another recent NASA study showed that Antarctic sea ice slightly thinned from 2003 to 2008, but increases in the extent of the ice balanced the loss in thickness and led to an overall volume gain.”

    It turns out that the minimal increase of Antarctic sea ice is due to weather patterns which appear to be a consequence of climactic changes due to global warming. You really should try reading your links before posting them, Wat.

    If that were not bad enough Wat tries again:

    wat dabney (2,456) Says:
    March 12th, 2013 at 10:22 am: ‘Hmm. Even arch warmist James Hansen has conceded that there has been a decade of no increase: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

    Then we get to the link provided by Wat which puts the carefully selected quote from Hansen into context:

    “Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C(1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980
    base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature
    thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme
    warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a
    combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
    An update through 2012 of our global analysis1
    (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the
    same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term
    global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface
    temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th
    warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate
    for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.”

    Believing the crap you believe, Wat, will not prevent the ongoing anthropogenic warming of the planets surface. The longer this goes on the more stupid you denialists appear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate.

    Yoza, if increasing sea ice, freezing winters and globally stable temperatures do not disprove AGW, what would convince you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Well done referring to stolen emails that have been examined and the scientists exonerated eight times.

    Griff, what matters is the content, not the fact they were “stolen”. You only mentioned that to distract from the real issue.

    They have not been exonerated, other than by AGW supporters who feared the collapse of the AGW industry. Not to mention being faced with the prospect of being unemployed weathermen with a history of telling lies. Not much call for them in the job market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.