Proved: There is no climate crisis

[Savetheplanet]

Perhaps before you start copying the content of other peoples' blogs, you should consider whether or not the links actually work.

 

And of the ones that do work, most don't say anything close to Global warming is real, and we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is causing it.

 

I think I counted three on that list (of the ones that worked) that said something like that. The rest basically said more study is required.

 

Faith in other men isn't going to get you far.

 

Ok so I copied the links, big deal. I am still waiting for you to post the names of 3 major scientific institutions dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere, that don't believe in ACC I hear nothing on that from you guys but crickets chirping.

[macattak1]

Ok so I copied the links, big deal. I am still waiting for you to post the names of 3 major scientific institutions dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere, that don't believe in ACC I hear nothing on that from you guys but crickets chirping.

 

Silly. You want a list of groups that are wasting money on researching how there is no MMGW? That would be nearly as much a waste of money as the scientists and groups wasting it on trying to claim MMGW.

 

I can give you one name and it says it all. Lord Monkton. He has dealth with all your broken science, carbon economic plans, etc.

 

He helped bring back DDT, the scariest most dangerous chemical apparently ever known to man. Now why would they bring back such an evil product? Perhaps it was not so bad after all...

 

Peace and Blessings

[RangerM]

I hear nothing on that from you guys but crickets chirping.

Count the number of chirps in 15 seconds and add 40. That'll give you the approximate temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, and it'll be more reliable than your MMGW nonsense.

 

Oh, and Mac is right. No one is going to waste a lot of time to prove something doesn't exist, although there are those who contradict the "consensus" and point out its flaws.

Edited March 11, 2009 by RangerM

[Savetheplanet]

Silly. You want a list of groups that are wasting money on researching how there is no MMGW? That would be nearly as much a waste of money as the scientists and groups wasting it on trying to claim MMGW.

 

I can give you one name and it says it all. Lord Monkton. He has dealth with all your broken science, carbon economic plans, etc.

 

He helped bring back DDT, the scariest most dangerous chemical apparently ever known to man. Now why would they bring back such an evil product? Perhaps it was not so bad after all...

 

Peace and Blessings

I am sure you are right, why research anything at all?

 

Former Lord Monkton isn't a scientist, has no scientific credentials, and has never had anything he has written reviewed and printed in a peer reviewed journal.

 

Why is it you guys can not come up with even ONE credible scientific body that disputes ACC? How about a few PEER REVIEWED articles that refute ACC? Waht? All you have are op-ed articles? hmmmm.

On another note, I do find it amusing that your user name is a bit aggressive and you end your post with peace and blessings, it's kind of a Freudian slip that shows how bi-polar you are. And it's no wonder that the only source you site is Lord Monkton, after all he has the title of LORD, so it has to be true right? I mean, you believe in a guy who who's mother was a virgin, his own father strung him up to die, but then he came back to life and is now an invisible sky god, who will send the natives in Borneo to hell just because they have never heard of him............but he loves them.

You believe in all that but don't even think we should error on the side of caution concerning ACC?

[Savetheplanet]

Count the number of chirps in 15 seconds and add 40. That'll give you the approximate temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, and it'll be more reliable than your MMGW nonsense.

 

Oh, and Mac is right. No one is going to waste a lot of time to prove something doesn't exist, although there are those who contradict the "consensus" and point out its flaws.

Wow those 2 opinion articles are game stoppers huh? I will add those to all the other PEER REVIEWED articles you guys have posted.

 

You can't even come up with one PEER REVIEWED article can you?

[xr7g428]

Ok so I copied the links, big deal. I am still waiting for you to post the names of 3 major scientific institutions dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere, that don't believe in ACC I hear nothing on that from you guys but crickets chirping.

 

STP, of course you copied the links. We would never accuse you of original thought.

 

For you it is a matter of belief. Or more accurately blind faith.

 

For the institutions on the list the level of "belief" is highly variable. Most would agree that the average global temperature has risen in recent years. Most believe that this is in some way, by some mechanism, related to the presence of human existence. Many believe that increased levels of CO2 may be a contributing factor. Beyond that, there is much disagreement.

 

If you would trouble yourself to read the entire IPCC, as I have, you would learn that the science in the report does not back the conclusions that are being drawn from it. The most profound thing you will learn is that outcomes in the science are expressed in probabilities, not certainties. It is a study in what MIGHT happen. If you wee to compare those predictions with the actual data from the past decade, you would see that the predictions are not accurate. Open your eyes, read the real documents.

 

If you were able to think for your self the obvious would become visible:

 

Does man have an effect on the AVERAGE global temperature? This is a mathematical certainty. Human settlement produces heat islands. As the human population increases, so does the area in settlement. If you were to take the average of any set of numbers, in this case global temperature measurements, if any number in the set increases, so will the average. Since historically we have oversampled the 1/3 of the earth not covered in water, and more particularly the habitable region of the planet, we have over sampled the areas that are most effected. This is why true global measurements from satellites do not support the land based measurements... they sample from a statistically significantly larger area.

 

CO2 does not form a layer like a glass roof in the atmosphere. CO2 is HEAVY, it is heavier than air, and it sinks to the ground. So the definition of "green house" gas is incorrect. CO2 does vibrate when exposed to certain frequencies of light, is soluable in the atmosphere, but not as much as in water, and the vibration causes friction which produces some slight heating. Our atmosphere does keep us warm, but it does it by insulating us from the cold of space. Insulation describes a material that is a poor conductor of energy. In this case, heat. CO2 is reasonably good insulator, but now where near as good as methane or many of the other so called green house gases.

 

CO2 is a trace gas. As green house gases go, it is very inefficient. Methane is about 14 times more efficient, and water vapor trumps all others. Both CO2 and Methane are trace elements. The ratio of CO2 to everything else is 380 to 999,620. Now even if we heated the 380 parts to twice the temperature of the rest of the atmosphere, it would only have the effect of very slight change. The heat would be diluted by a factor of 2630 to one. In other words, our one part CO2 has to warm up 2630 parts nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and so on. But the truth is that CO2 really doesn't get very hot, in fact it generates heat only by its friction with other components of the atmosphere, and heat absolutely always, without variance moves toward cold,like space. Heat never ever, not on its best day moves toward something hotter, like the surface of the earth. Never the less, more CO2 will have a measurable mathematical relationship with atmospheric temperatures.

 

Methane is increasing at a rate many times faster than CO2, is much more effective both as an insulator as well as a heat generator, and has been studied far less. Perhaps this is because no effective way exists to tax its production? If our goal was really to avert disaster, we would be talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere today, not talking about ways to change our life styles that won't produce meaningful reductions in the next 20 years.

 

In small words, the question is not whether climate change is real, but whether the solutions are really justified or even rational in light of the facts.

[Savetheplanet]

STP, of course you copied the links. We would never accuse you of original thought.

 

For you it is a matter of belief. Or more accurately blind faith.

 

For the institutions on the list the level of "belief" is highly variable. Most would agree that the average global temperature has risen in recent years. Most believe that this is in some way, by some mechanism, related to the presence of human existence. Many believe that increased levels of CO2 may be a contributing factor. Beyond that, there is much disagreement.

 

If you would trouble yourself to read the entire IPCC, as I have, you would learn that the science in the report does not back the conclusions that are being drawn from it. The most profound thing you will learn is that outcomes in the science are expressed in probabilities, not certainties. It is a study in what MIGHT happen. If you wee to compare those predictions with the actual data from the past decade, you would see that the predictions are not accurate. Open your eyes, read the real documents.

 

If you were able to think for your self the obvious would become visible:

 

Does man have an effect on the AVERAGE global temperature? This is a mathematical certainty. Human settlement produces heat islands. As the human population increases, so does the area in settlement. If you were to take the average of any set of numbers, in this case global temperature measurements, if any number in the set increases, so will the average. Since historically we have oversampled the 1/3 of the earth not covered in water, and more particularly the habitable region of the planet, we have over sampled the areas that are most effected. This is why true global measurements from satellites do not support the land based measurements... they sample from a statistically significantly larger area.

 

CO2 does not form a layer like a glass roof in the atmosphere. CO2 is HEAVY, it is heavier than air, and it sinks to the ground. So the definition of "green house" gas is incorrect. CO2 does vibrate when exposed to certain frequencies of light, is soluable in the atmosphere, but not as much as in water, and the vibration causes friction which produces some slight heating. Our atmosphere does keep us warm, but it does it by insulating us from the cold of space. Insulation describes a material that is a poor conductor of energy. In this case, heat. CO2 is reasonably good insulator, but now where near as good as methane or many of the other so called green house gases.

 

CO2 is a trace gas. As green house gases go, it is very inefficient. Methane is about 14 times more efficient, and water vapor trumps all others. Both CO2 and Methane are trace elements. The ratio of CO2 to everything else is 380 to 999,620. Now even if we heated the 380 parts to twice the temperature of the rest of the atmosphere, it would only have the effect of very slight change. The heat would be diluted by a factor of 2630 to one. In other words, our one part CO2 has to warm up 2630 parts nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and so on. But the truth is that CO2 really doesn't get very hot, in fact it generates heat only by its friction with other components of the atmosphere, and heat absolutely always, without variance moves toward cold,like space. Heat never ever, not on its best day moves toward something hotter, like the surface of the earth. Never the less, more CO2 will have a measurable mathematical relationship with atmospheric temperatures.

 

Methane is increasing at a rate many times faster than CO2, is much more effective both as an insulator as well as a heat generator, and has been studied far less. Perhaps this is because no effective way exists to tax its production? If our goal was really to avert disaster, we would be talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere today, not talking about ways to change our life styles that won't produce meaningful reductions in the next 20 years.

 

In small words, the question is not whether climate change is real, but whether the solutions are really justified or even rational in light of the facts.

[Savetheplanet]

hmmm, I think maybe I should call my parents and tell them to cancel the fire insurance on their house, after all, they have less than a 1% chance of their house burning down. Come to think of it why do people who have already paid off their house have insurance when the probability of a fire is soooo low?

 

Do you like my IMAWHOSURE analogy that adds nothing to the thread?

[DUCKRACER]

The same huh? Obama has only been in office for 5 weeks and he has done more in that time than the science denying George W. did in his 8 years. You guys are in the minority now, the public supports environmental protection. Here is a list of what Obama has already done, read em and weep, then open up your wallets and pay for your overconsumption.

 

• January 26, 2009: President Obama directs the EPA to reconsider the agency's decision to deny California's strong limits on global warming pollution from cars, and he calls on the Department of Transportation to raise national fuel efficiency standards.

• February 4, 2009: More than 100,000 acres of Utah wilderness win protection from oil and gas drilling after the Department of Interior announced that it will cancel 77 leases issued under the Bush administration.

• February 5, 2009: President Obama signs a presidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energy set new efficiency standards for common household appliances. This will save in 30 years the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America over a two-year period.

• February 6, 2009: The EPA announces it will reconsider its decision to deny California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.

• February 6, 2009: On instruction from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to drop the Bush administration's desperate appeal to resurrect EPA's illegal and harmful power plant mercury rule.

• February 10, 2009: Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he is going to make a thorough review of the five-year Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program that was announced in the final days of the Bush administration.

• February 10, 2009: Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC to reconsider and "stay" for three months a harmful midnight air pollution rule adopted by the Bush administration in mid-January 2009 that would allow dirty industries to release more pollution.

• February 13, 2009: Congress came to an agreement on an economic stimulus package that includes bold investments for renewable power and energy efficiency, including weatherization programs that will save consumers billions while creating up to 90,000 jobs. Repairing our nation's outdated and corroded water and waste systems will also create more than 200,000 jobs and improve the safety of our beaches, streams, and drinking water.

• February 17, 2009: EPA Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC, Sierra Club and EDF to reconsider a disputed memo signed by Administrator Johnson in December 2008 that refused to regulate carbon dioxide from new coal-fired power plants. She announced that EPA would convene a public process to review this memo, in what was widely seen as the first step to reversing the Bush policy.

• February 20, 2009: The Obama administration puts its support behind an international, legally binding treaty to reduce global mercury pollution. This position--a dramatic change for the stonewalling of the Bush years--influences policy reversals from other nations including China and India. Now more than 140 countries commit to regulating this dangerous neurotoxin.

• February 24, 2009: In his first State of the Union address, Obama calls on Congress to pass legislation to cap global warming pollution and drive expansion of renewable energy. He also pledges $15 billion a year to invest in solar, wind, biofuels, and more efficient vehicles, and to put American to work making our homes and buildings more energy efficient.

• February 25, 2009: Thousands of acres in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado will be protected from harmful oil shale research and development after Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he will reverse course on the Bush administration's leasing program.

• February 26, 2009: The Obama administration releases a federal budget that is the first in history to make critical investments in our clean energy future and tackle global warming head on. It includes revenue from a cap and invest program to limit global warming pollution, which is forecast to generate $150 billion over 10 years starting in 2012.

 

You see, savetheplanet, people like myself and many others here think that these are BAD things.

[RangerM]

Wow those 2 opinion articles are game stoppers huh? I will add those to all the other PEER REVIEWED articles you guys have posted.

 

You can't even come up with one PEER REVIEWED article can you?

They were given earlier in the thread. You missed them.

 

Go here.

 

Oh, and on that third one (a senate website), scroll down the webpage to see various links to the (20+) articles.

Edited March 11, 2009 by RangerM

[RangerM]

hmmm, I think maybe I should call my parents and tell them to cancel the fire insurance on their house, after all, they have less than a 1% chance of their house burning down. Come to think of it why do people who have already paid off their house have insurance when the probability of a fire is soooo low?

 

It is their choice, unless of course they're still carrying a mortgage.

 

I don't wish to carry the mortgage on a false presumption. At least a house is real.

[sprinter]

Governments can always find a way to tax people (and cows) to prevent GW.

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/irelan...4242514766.html

[macattak1]

I am sure you are right, why research anything at all?

 

Former Lord Monkton isn't a scientist, has no scientific credentials, and has never had anything he has written reviewed and printed in a peer reviewed journal.

 

Why is it you guys can not come up with even ONE credible scientific body that disputes ACC? How about a few PEER REVIEWED articles that refute ACC? Waht? All you have are op-ed articles? hmmmm.

On another note, I do find it amusing that your user name is a bit aggressive and you end your post with peace and blessings, it's kind of a Freudian slip that shows how bi-polar you are. And it's no wonder that the only source you site is Lord Monkton, after all he has the title of LORD, so it has to be true right? I mean, you believe in a guy who who's mother was a virgin, his own father strung him up to die, but then he came back to life and is now an invisible sky god, who will send the natives in Borneo to hell just because they have never heard of him............but he loves them.

You believe in all that but don't even think we should error on the side of caution concerning ACC?

 

Monkton was there during the oil crises, he was a scientific advisor to thatcher, he has taken and looked at the sciences behind MMGW and shown very clearly to us lay people what junk it is. He would debate you, Al Gore, or anyone else on national TV about MMGW. But he would tear all of you up thus no takers.

 

Here is a good link on Monkton's peer review and how spun up MMGW alarmist are. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006113.html And it, as shown, is nearly impossible to get a Peer Review against MMGW because that is not how the group operates. They are set up to support it, not question it, let alone denounce it. Might as well try to get a Ford Malibu while I'm at it.

 

I think on the side of the environment just as do likely ever single person on this board. We tell you and tell you but you do not hear. We show you and show you but you do not see. You only have eyes and ears for how bad MMGW is going to get. You have no restraint. Not in your MMGW mongering, nor your name calling and child like attacks that you whirl around the boards with. You are one of the most immature players on this board and you prove it post after post. You have made yourself nearly insignificant. Likely every single one of us on this board recycles, picks up trash, turn off the switch when not in use, drives as little as we need to, etc. But conservation is no longer good enough for you. Now its time to hit our wallets.

 

Peace and Blessings

[xr7g428]

hmmm, I think maybe I should call my parents and tell them to cancel the fire insurance on their house, after all, they have less than a 1% chance of their house burning down. Come to think of it why do people who have already paid off their house have insurance when the probability of a fire is soooo low?

 

Do you like my IMAWHOSURE analogy that adds nothing to the thread?

 

Imawhosure is rational. Your analogy is not. Perhaps some day when you own your own home you will learn to differentiate between the risks that are real, and those that are imaginary.

 

Buying insurance is a reasonable assessment of risk and reward.

 

First of all, the risk is real: houses do burn down. For every 100 houses, in every 100 year period, a number of houses burn down. There is good reason to believe it can and will occur.

 

If the historical record showed that a rise in CO2 preceded a rise in temperature, there might be reason to believe this might also occur, but the record indicates the opposite. So there is little reason to believe that it can or will occur.

 

Fire is just one of many possible risks that are covered with an insurance policy, and also the one that they are least likely to ever collect on.

 

There are many different kinds of risks to the human population, disease, earth quakes, volcanoes, tsunami, hurricane, etc. all of which are known to occur. Aren't we much more likely to face these known hazards than one we have never experienced.

 

Insurance, particularly if we narrow it only cover the risk of fire, is very cheap compared to the cost of repairing the structure, and the probability that a fire might occur.

Reducing the quality of life for practically every human being on the planet seems a high price to pay to possibly reduce the risk of something that has never happened before.

[Trimdingman]

The only reason that they are pushing this man made global warming is not because of whether or not it is true, but because of the fact that it has caught on. It is like a new religion. People are so caught up in this belief that no amount of proof will convince them otherwise. They would need to go into a

de-tox program to get this out of their systems. Any tax should be voluntary. The believers would pay extra to make up the shortfall from the normal people. We pay too much money to the government now. We need to come up with ways to cut down on government so that we can keep our own money and re-build the economy.

[Savetheplanet]

Monkton was there during the oil crises, he was a scientific advisor to thatcher, he has taken and looked at the sciences behind MMGW and shown very clearly to us lay people what junk it is. He would debate you, Al Gore, or anyone else on national TV about MMGW. But he would tear all of you up thus no takers.

 

Here is a good link on Monkton's peer review and how spun up MMGW alarmist are. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006113.html And it, as shown, is nearly impossible to get a Peer Review against MMGW because that is not how the group operates. They are set up to support it, not question it, let alone denounce it. Might as well try to get a Ford Malibu while I'm at it.

 

I think on the side of the environment just as do likely ever single person on this board. We tell you and tell you but you do not hear. We show you and show you but you do not see. You only have eyes and ears for how bad MMGW is going to get. You have no restraint. Not in your MMGW mongering, nor your name calling and child like attacks that you whirl around the boards with. You are one of the most immature players on this board and you prove it post after post. You have made yourself nearly insignificant. Likely every single one of us on this board recycles, picks up trash, turn off the switch when not in use, drives as little as we need to, etc. But conservation is no longer good enough for you. Now its time to hit our wallets.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

*yawn*

[macattak1]

*yawn*

 

I agree. He is way to much for you to touch. Like a bottle of High Explosives in a cartoon.

 

Peace and Blessins

[Savetheplanet]

I agree. He is way to much for you to touch. Like a bottle of High Explosives in a cartoon.

 

Peace and Blessins

 

 

I don't pay much attention to people like Al Gore or LORD Monkton, who is also a VISCOUNT, whatever that is. You see, they are not scientists.

 

It's NOT a peer reviewed article!! Is Monkton the best you can come up with? I mean really! He is not really even a lord, as in house of lords. I also could not find any proof that he even advised Thatcher.

 

1) New Scientist had a good story about how all this happened:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environme...er-showing.html

 

and for more details on Marsh, see:

2) See:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...p#comment-93523

 

 

 

"I spoke to Al Saperstein of Wayne State University in Michigan, one of two co-editors of Physics & Society, the offending newsletter.

 

He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. "I'm a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed," he said. "It was not."

[NickF1011]

What I want to know is:

 

If the problem here is CO2, what the hell happened to the Plant-a-Tree movement? Oh wait. You don't make any money off of that.

[Trimdingman]

Al Gore refuses to debate man-made-global-warming skeptics. Why would he pass up this chance to prove to the world that we face a serious crisis? He is now down to a radical hard core of followers. Many of them know that the notion is bogus, but go along anyway because it is politically a way to move the world to the left. A televised debate would not lose him any followers because they are hard-wired into global warming, but it would expose his true agenda to the rest of the world. His followers who believe are into it like religion. It is like Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve to them. The rest know that he is lying, but they are Communists at heart. It is a means to an end. They probably got that from university. Many non-believers think that he is sincere. I don't think that he believes what he is saying at all. This would be shown to the world in a good televised debate with a real scientist with debating skills. That is why he will not do it.

[stephenhawkings]

Al Gore refuses to debate man-made-global-warming skeptics. Why would he pass up this chance to prove to the world that we face a serious crisis? He is now down to a radical hard core of followers. Many of them know that the notion is bogus, but go along anyway because it is politically a way to move the world to the left. A televised debate would not lose him any followers because they are hard-wired into global warming, but it would expose his true agenda to the rest of the world. His followers who believe are into it like religion. It is like Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve to them. The rest know that he is lying, but they are Communists at heart. It is a means to an end. They probably got that from university. Many non-believers think that he is sincere. I don't think that he believes what he is saying at all. This would be shown to the world in a good televised debate with a real scientist with debating skills. That is why he will not do it.

which skeptics have challenged him to a debate?, or better yet which scientists? or is it just disgruntled tax payers like you that dont believe him? its time to get past the big red scare tactics TRIM and grow some original thoughts of your own.

[NickF1011]

which skeptics have challenged him to a debate?, or better yet which scientists? or is it just disgruntled tax payers like you that dont believe him? its time to get past the big red scare tactics TRIM and grow some original thoughts of your own.

 

I'll get over the big red scare tactics when big red stops trying to penalize me for things I really have no control over.

[Trimdingman]

which skeptics have challenged him to a debate?, or better yet which scientists? or is it just disgruntled tax payers like you that dont believe him? its time to get past the big red scare tactics TRIM and grow some original thoughts of your own.

 

 

I am not the one who came up with man-made-global-warming. It is just the last in a long list of failed prophesies by the left. If you don't think that I am original, you don't know me very well. I don't think that more than 10% of the people on this board agree with most of what I say. They would be the smart 10%, by the way. Google "Al Gore refuses debate", and you will find what was in the news lately. Of course, the main stream liberal media did not mention it.

[macattak1]

which skeptics have challenged him to a debate?, or better yet which scientists? or is it just disgruntled tax payers like you that dont believe him? its time to get past the big red scare tactics TRIM and grow some original thoughts of your own.

 

How could gore challenge anyone. His 'the world has a fever' is so scientific it would automatically defeat any opponent. Gore uses no science anyway. Only analogies. Cant go wrong with analogies.

 

Monkton challenges John Kerry. Got to love this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...ton_gdebate.pdf

 

"Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, (+44 1882 632341; monckton@mail.com) is a former policy

advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In the late 1980s he was one of the

first to sound warnings that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might cause climatic disturbances.

In articles in the Evening Standard and in a television broadcast on the Clive James Show, he warned Londoners that if the

threat proved real they might “have to take to the boats.” Margaret Thatcher thereupon gave a speech alerting the Royal

Society, Britain’s leading scientific body, to climate change, and she established the Hadley Centre to research the issue.

However, after careful study..."

 

"As Chief Leader-Writer and Consulting Editor of the London Evening

Standard in the early 1990s, he was a lone voice warning the nation that membership of the European “exchange-rate

mechanism” would either cause unprecedented damage to the British economy or destroy the mechanism. Relentlessly, his

columns in the Evening Standard championed those whose jobs were destroyed, businesses bankrupted, and homes

repossessed as a consequence of this mad policy, which had the support of all three major political parties, the civil service,

and all elements of the British establishment. As the British economy was visibly laid waste, other national newspapers that

had at first praised the policy followed Lord Monckton’s lead, changing their stance one by one. Eventually, all were against it.

In 1992, to please John Major, the embarrassed and angry Prime Minister, Lord Monckton was dismissed from the Evening

Standard, receiving a record payout worth almost $350,000 at today’s prices. The incoming Editor, to please John Major still

further, changed the Evening Standard’s editorial policy to express fawning support for the doomed policy. Three weeks later,

as Lord Monckton had foretold, the pound Sterling collapsed and brought down the mechanism with it, flinging John Major

from office. His Conservative Party has not held office since...."

 

"In November 2006, Lord Monckton wrote two major articles in the London Sunday Telegraph, in which he presented

formidable evidence questioning the alarmists’ view of climate change. An article by Al Gore in reply appeared the week

following the second article. Within 12 hours of Gore’s article, Lord Monckton had produced a 24-page refutation of it,

incorporating more than 60 references to scientific papers published in the peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Samizdat copies

of this document, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf, have circulated globally. The British Foreign Secretary,

Margaret Beckett, said after the second of Lord Monckton’s articles that anyone who dared to question the imagined

“consensus” on climate change should be treated like an advocate of Islamic terror and should be denied access to the UK

news media. Lord Monckton has not been published in the national Press since then."

 

And here is your Peer Review. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...ewed_or_not.pdf

Really, he wrote it so almost anyone could understand it!

 

Challenge to Gore. http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog.../9/2936038.html

 

Emmmmm, goooooood.

 

Peace and Blessings

[stephenhawkings]

science and public policy institute....

 

... ........... ....hmmmmm.....

 

....hmmmmm.....

 

 

......doesn't that sound familiar "science and public policy institute"?