Lord Monckton and the Global Warming Swindle

Priori

Hi

I was quite active previously as a Friends of the Earth volunteer, wouldn't get on a plane etc due to the carbon footprint, but the convictions/beliefs I held back then have certainly been challenged, if not completely overthrown.

See the following for a taster if you're not familiar with the new 'open debate' (although I'm sure most of you are).

Climate Sense conference

Monckton speaking before Congress

I have not seen a completely satisfactory reply to Monckton's arguments as yet, perhaps I haven't looked far enough. I don't have an 'agenda' to believe one thing over another, so I would be grateful for any (well informed) pointers.

alastair

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

Yitzhak Rabin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U

Enjoy.

demonspawn

Priori wrote: »

Hi

I was quite active previously as a Friends of the Earth volunteer, wouldn't get on a plane etc due to the carbon footprint, but the convictions/beliefs I held back then have certainly been challenged, if not completely overthrown.

See the following for a taster if you're not familiar with the new 'open debate' (although I'm sure most of you are).

Climate Sense conference

Monckton speaking before Congress

I have not seen a completely satisfactory reply to Monckton's arguments as yet, perhaps I haven't looked far enough. I don't have an 'agenda' to believe one thing over another, so I would be grateful for any (well informed) pointers.

Monckton has repeatedly proven himself to be an idiot of the highest caliber. He's a propagandist for hire, nothing more. I'm actually embarrassed for you to even come to these forums and claim this joker is anything but a bold-faced liar and a crook. I can see why you created an account just to post this.

Good day.

Brown Bomber

Priori wrote: »

Hi

I was quite active previously as a Friends of the Earth volunteer, wouldn't get on a plane etc due to the carbon footprint, but the convictions/beliefs I held back then have certainly been challenged, if not completely overthrown.

See the following for a taster if you're not familiar with the new 'open debate' (although I'm sure most of you are).

Climate Sense conference

Monckton speaking before Congress

I have not seen a completely satisfactory reply to Monckton's arguments as yet, perhaps I haven't looked far enough. I don't have an 'agenda' to believe one thing over another, so I would be grateful for any (well informed) pointers.

I'm on the fence to be honest but maybe you might find this interesting? It is current.

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
By MATT PATTERSON

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."

All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.

The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

And here is a link to the actual report: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

Brown Bomber

demonspawn wrote: »

Monckton has repeatedly proven himself to be an idiot of the highest caliber. He's a propagandist for hire, nothing more. I'm actually embarrassed for you to even come to these forums and claim this joker is anything but a bold-faced liar and a crook. I can see why you created an account just to post this.

Good day.

a bit harsh.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm on the fence to be honest but maybe you might find this interesting? It is current.

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
By MATT PATTERSON
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

And here is a link to the actual report: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

The Capital Research Center came under fire in the 1990s for publishing studies highly critical of charities which engaged in anti-tobacco lobbying efforts.[9]. These charities include the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. It was later revealed that tobacco giant Philip Morris provided $50,000 in funding to the Capital Research Center.

Doesn't prove anything but interesting all the same

orourkeda

demonspawn wrote: »

Monckton has repeatedly proven himself to be an idiot of the highest caliber. He's a propagandist for hire, nothing more. I'm actually embarrassed for you to even come to these forums and claim this joker is anything but a bold-faced liar and a crook. I can see why you created an account just to post this.

Good day.

I dont know much about the guy. What has he done to make such an idiot of himself.

Scarab80

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

demonspawn

orourkeda wrote: »

I dont know much about the guy. What has he done to make such an idiot of himself.

"Climategate". Oh, and he's also not a "Lord". He tells people that although he has never once held a seat in the House of Lords. He ran for the House once and failed to get a single vote. His father was a lord, Monckton is simply a hereditary peer. Oh, and his brother in an MI6 agent.

uglyjohn

an idiot and a liar. If i was trying to build a case against climate change i would be embarrassed by him.

He plays on peoples fears to make a quick buck.

Priori

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm actually embarrassed for you to even come to these forums and claim this joker is anything but a bold-faced liar and a crook. I can see why you created an account just to post this.

Good day.

I didn't come here to post abuse demonspawn. And by your tone it would appear that you feel you own these forums. If anyone cares to have a look at my join date, they will clearly see how implausible demonspawn's assumption that I created this account just to post this.

Thanks to the others for providing information. It's much appreciated, and it is the mature and civilized response I was hoping for. I have no particular like/dislike for Monckton, I'm more interested in the content.

demonspawn

Priori wrote: »

I didn't come here to post abuse demonspawn. And by your tone it would appear that you feel you own these forums. If anyone cares to have a look at my join date, they will clearly see how implausible demonspawn's assumption that I created this account just to post this.

Thanks to the others for providing information. It's much appreciated, and it is the mature and civilized response I was hoping for. I have no particular like/dislike for Monckton, I'm more interested in the content.

I've been banned several times for breaches of the charter so no, I certainly don't think I own these forums. You created an account over a year ago and never posted a single time, what does that say? Who knows? Seems strange to use your first post to praise an imbecile like Monckton though.

Nobody here is interested in what Monckton has to say because I'd hope we're all intelligent enough to know when we are being rumbled. He's a propagandist for hire.

You claim to have no agenda in your first post but the very title of this thread would indicate otherwise. Perhaps you'd be better posting this in politics, some people are much more willing to swallow whatever they're told over there.

humanji

Demonspawn, less of the personal abuse!

demonspawn

Sorry. That Monckton fella just winds me up so much. The mere mention of his name drives me into a murderous rage. His existence just reminds me of all the things I hate about the human race. I shall try harder to control myself.

Priori

Hi demonspawn,

I'm beginning to understand why he winds you up so much. I hadn't known too much about him previously to be honest, only that he has been spearheaded as the so-called 'expert' of the Global Warming denial camp. I can see how shaky the foundations are now upon which he bases much of his claims.

demonspawn

Priori wrote: »

Hi demonspawn,

I'm beginning to understand why he winds you up so much. I hadn't known too much about him previously to be honest, only that he has been spearheaded as the so-called 'expert' of the Global Warming denial camp. I can see how shaky the foundations are now upon which he bases much of his claims.

You changed your tune very quickly. Why post this thread then, especially considering the title? Are you that unsure of your beliefs that one page of comments on a public forum can make you change your mind?

Priory of Sion (or is it Zion)? Nice username.

Yitzhak Rabin

demonspawn wrote: »

You changed your tune very quickly. Why post this thread then, especially considering the title? Are you that unsure of your beliefs that one page of comments on a public forum can make you change your mind?

Priory of Sion (or is it Zion)? Nice username.

Some people have open minds that change when shown evidence to the contrary. They come to these forums to discuss things, rather than to put forward their opinions and ignore anyone with a different opinion.

demonspawn

yekahs wrote: »

Some people have open minds that change when shown evidence to the contrary. They come to these forums to discuss things, rather than to put forward their opinions and ignore anyone with a different opinion.

Or they come here to spread misinformation then turn tail and run when they've been rumbled. Strange you have no comment on my video of the Lucifer worshiping Shriner in the other thread.

Yitzhak Rabin

demonspawn wrote: »

Or they come here to spread misinformation then turn tail and run when they've been rumbled. Strange you have no comment on my video of the Lucifer worshiping Shriner in the other thread.

Why is it strange? I think both people in the video are loo-las. Both the notion of Jesus as a God and Lucifer seem ludicrous to me.

demonspawn

yekahs wrote: »

Why is it strange? I think both people in the video are loo-las. Both the notion of Jesus as a God and Lucifer seem ludicrous to me.

So why do you have the square and compass in your signature? You do realize that those are the magical symbols of the Freemasons, do you not? You do realize that Freemasons worship Lucifer, the Light Bringer and the Bearer of Knowledge, do you not? You do realize that Freemasons take great offense to anyone advertising the be a mason when they are not, correct?

Yitzhak Rabin

demonspawn wrote: »

So why do you have the square and compass in your signature?

Because I recently announced that I would be joining, and the signature links to a handbook, which can answer most questions people may have about the masons.

You do realize that those are the magical symbols of the Freemasons, do you not?

Nothing magical about them. They originate from the origins of the freemasons, which goes back to the stonemasons guilds of the past.

You do realize that Freemasons worship Lucifer, the Light Bringer and the Bearer of Knowledge, do you not?

Masons worship a wide variety of Gods, some are Christian, some are Jewish, some are Hindu. Perhaps some are Luciferians, although I haven't come across any myself. All that is required when joining is that you believe in a supreme creator. There is no worshipping of a specific God within the order.

You do realize that Freemasons take great offense to anyone advertising the be a mason when they are not, correct?

I'm sure they do. I haven't advertised as being one.

If you have anymore questions about me and the masons, ask me in the freemansons thread, or PM me. Its not fair on the OP of this thread to hijack it.

demonspawn

yekahs wrote: »

Because I recently announced that I would be joining, and the signature links to a handbook, which can answer most questions people may have about the masons.

Perhaps it can tell me why the most advanced Freemasons perform the ritual magic of King Solomon.

Nothing magical about them. They originate from the origins of the freemasons, which goes back to the stonemasons guilds of the past.

See above. The history of Freemasonry goes back thousands of years. The leadership of the Masons claim to be direct descendants of the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Masons worship a wide variety of Gods, some are Christian, some are Jewish, some are Hindu. Perhaps some are Luciferians, although I haven't come across any myself. All that is required when joining is that you believe in a supreme creator. There is no worshipping of a specific God within the order.

I'm well aware of the requirements for membership to the Freemasons.

I'm sure they do. I haven't advertised as being one.

If you have anymore questions about me and the masons, ask me in the freemansons thread, or PM me. Its not fair on the OP of this thread to hijack it.

No need for any more questions. I know what they are. I wouldn't trust you to provide me with the truth anyway. The time of the Freemasons and their cronies is drawing to an end. The new era is coming and there's nothing they can do about it. I'm sure your familiar with Aquarius and the symbol's meaning. It's the fall of Babylon.

Priori

demonspawn wrote: »

You changed your tune very quickly. Why post this thread then, especially considering the title? Are you that unsure of your beliefs that one page of comments on a public forum can make you change your mind?

As yekahs pointed out, some people come here with an open mind. And that one page of comments should make me 'change my tune'; demonspawn, a properly rational and sincere person should be open to having their beliefs altered by a single sentence, if it contains appropriate evidence/force to the contrary of what they have believed thus far. Try reading a bit of Wittgenstein to see what I mean.

You can't seem to resist the personal abuse. I'm now accused of spreading misinformation and turning tail, as I've been rumbled.

Thanks to the other users for being civil and not abusing me for being unsure of my beliefs. I certainly don't see being uncertain about my beliefs as a weakness. More in line with cultivating Socratic virtue, I would have thought. If you're honestly not sure, only an inflated ego prevents one from admitting it.

Brown Bomber

This is the best link on global warming / climate change I have seen.

A complete list of things caused by global warming

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

demonspawn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the best link on global warming / climate change I have seen.

A complete list of things caused by global warming

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

LOL at all those "broken" links. Evidence removed by our buddies running the interwebz.