Comments on: Democrats in the Legislature Chicken Out of Climate Debate With Lord Monckton

By: Deepak

Deepak — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:05:38 +0000

Tess first: the Nobel prize has long been a meaningless poaiticll statement, and therefore of dubious merit, except for the monetary part. If pres. Obummer could get it for doing absolutely Nothing, then Monckton deserves it for his superb investigation of the so-called global warming facts as presented by Gore, who would be torn to shreads during a debate between the two (which Gore avoids at all costs). As to global warming , Tess is obviously ignorant of the facts, or so tied to an Agenda that she is unable or unwilling to assess the facts. The Agendists conveniently ignore the data by discarding it in favor of any data, however tenuous, that supports their belief .They are well known to discard anything that doesn’t fit their curves. With them, it is a religion based on preconcieved prejudices, often related strongly to economic moires they use it to make money, gain power, or temporary notoriety, or all three. Note that many of the warmers were, just a few decades ago, coolers , they predicted ice buildup to inundate the earth was imminent. These same Agendists today predict the warmer earth will flood the lowlands with sea overflow,causing mass destruction! I have, for two decades, followed the sea level personally and found there to be NO truth to their claims; sea level has risen about 3/4 inch in that time. Hardly ehough to account for the massive rise of volcanic islands around the world. I, for one, agree with Monckton that the Warmers scare tactics are just that, and have absolutely no grounds for action of any sort. They are strictly poaiticll or, to be benevolent, so Agendisized that they would be pressed to locate their provobial proboscices in a dark room!

By: Erik Osbun

Erik Osbun — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:01:58 +0000

Man can do nothing to change climate. Man has never done anything to change climate. Yet we are to be taxed for something we did not do. It’s as bad as Obamacare, in which we can be taxed for not buying insurance. There is no logical basis for taxes of either cap and trade or Obamacare. I take that back: the sole logical reason for these taxes is to gain more CONTROL and POWER over us.

By: Mortis

Mortis — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:11:34 +0000

N says:
“see the comment trackback from WUWT on the 23rd and then all the ‘tards arrive.
These people are clueless about the science.”

Let’s see, ad hominim attack, unsubstantiated claim, and you,ironically, attack other people for being unscientific. Wow.

Just wow.

By: N

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:16:56 +0000

see the comment trackback from WUWT on the 23rd and then all the ‘tards arrive.

These people are clueless about the science.

By: LOL in Oregon

LOL in Oregon — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:47:42 +0000

Hey, wait,
remember, the absentees are in the group of the folk that strongly supported eugenics!
The Oregonian had a big article on how they gleefully “removed the ability to procreate” from more folk than any other state.

Just cuz they still want to eliminate the “surplus population”
(but, of course, not them or their progeny),
doesn’t mean they’re incorrigible… or does it?

By: Timo K

Timo K — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:02:13 +0000

Scott Mandia , T.F, E.J.A, remind me of an era all too familiar to Europeans.While Soviet Union was already falling apart, die hard leftists still repeated old Brezhnevian mantras.They just did not see how they were making fools of themselves in public.
The religion of “Man made climate change” is crumbling.Here in Europe, only idiots, organised crime and some politicians still “believe” in CO2 being the problem.Germany has her grid in chaos because of solar- and windpower, Britain is taking steps backwards with her failed windfarms, most rural weather stations around northern Europe show no warming for last 100 years, so why anyone should believe those “climate scientists”?
No superman(dia) is going to save the CO2 religion.The game is over.

By: Vinnie G

Vinnie G — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:52:32 +0000

JM says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Wow, I didn’t know the California legislature hosted Comedy Nights… A discredited lying fraud paid for by the coal industry is the best they can do? People in denial are truly pathetic with their flailing desperation and denouncement of reality… “If I debate this just one more time to soothe my ego, maybe it will all go away!” Sad.

________________________________

Then we can assume you agree with everything Monckton says if it can be shown that he is not “A discredited lying fraud paid for by the coal industry”.

Perhaps providing arguments as to why you believe your unsubstantiated claims would be more productive than “to soothe my ego,… to make it “all go away!”

“Sad.”

Indeed.

By: Vinnie G

Vinnie G — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:35 +0000

caerbannog says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period 550 million ago was an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm.”
A quick followup question — what caused the Ordovician Ice Age to end?

__________

This is what wikipedia says:

“The most commonly accepted theory is that these events were triggered by the onset of most cold conditions in the late Katian, followed by an ice age, in the Hirnantian faunal stage, that ended the long, stable greenhouse conditions typical of the Ordovician.

The ice age was possibly not long-lasting, study of oxygen isotopes in fossil brachiopods showing that its duration could have been only 0.5 to 1.5 million years.[9] Other researchers (Page et al.) estimate more temperate conditions did not return until the late Silurian.

The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm[citation needed]), which selectively affected the shallow seas where most organisms lived. As the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted over the South Pole, ice caps formed on it, which have been detected in Upper Ordovician rock strata of North Africa and then-adjacent northeastern South America, which were south-polar locations at the time.”

Your point is what?

By: BigWaveDave

BigWaveDave — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:32:14 +0000

There is no credible theory of how CO2 affects atmospheric temperature. There is only a tortured hypothesis that has been substituted for what the state of the science was in the late ’60s (for example, see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ…149..731S ),

I used to attribute the new lack of understanding to naivety, but it has become abundantly clear that the motivation of the the folks promoting CO2 alarmism stems from either their being paid to do so, or their desire to drive western civilization back into the stone age, or in many cases, just their plain stupidity.

By: Mike Lewis

Mike Lewis — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:15:04 +0000

@Scott Mandia – Your “team” diatribe is the same fallacy laden fear mongering that has been promulgated for the last 20 years. The physics of green house gases may have been understood for the last 100 years but the impact of CO2 on the ATMOSPHERE has not. Where is the tropospheric “hot spot” that the models predicted? It doesn’t exist. In the last 100 years there were two 30 year periods of identical temperature increases, yet only the second is attributed to CO2. There has been no warming in the last 17 years. The sophisticated models of which you speak can’t even properly hind-cast without questionable modifications to the temperature record. And contrary to what you say, the earth’s shape is closer to oblate spheroid than round. Of course, little things like that don’t matter when fighting for the “cause”.