Australian Politics Forum

.

astro_surf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[2][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

:D :D :D

Yer quoting wikipedia there astro_surf . Only credible references please. Try again astro_surf .. :)

"...Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique 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..."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

"Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist..."

Eh :-? ... ah thoughts he said the world actually warmed up the last hundred odd years ?

Doctor Jolly please give a reference to "every scientist" who claims the world is currently warming.. :-?

.

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

Those two organisations are simply singing from the same hymn book and getting their 'facts' from the same source.
And they both quote world average temperatures from a time well before those organisations existence, and before temperatures were logged.
Which means their 'facts' are extrapolation and therefore are more educated guesses than 'facts'.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Ernie on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:31am

That article about wikipedia is EVERYWHERE. It's amazing how the anti GW crowd propagate these opinion pieces, even Andrew Bolt re-issued it.

I wonder if this is one of the methods of the Heartland Institute? Mass mailouts when they find a sympathetic piece.

It's the obverse of scientific concensus - "blog consensus".

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by buzzanddidj on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:40am

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

But WAIT ... there's MORE from this FRAUDSTER !

Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

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.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

The letter (original)

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Maqqa on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:01am

astro_surf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:17pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

Did Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Garnaut get the same question?

Those people aren't in conflict with the views of the the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics or every other peak science body on the face of the planet The first two aren't even claiming to be engaged in the "debate", they are simply communicating the results of the REAL scientific debate. While Garnaut is an economist expressing an opinion on the ECONOMICS of action to prevent climate change, he is an expert speaking from within his field of expertise.

So is Monckton

He's simply communicating his finds - findings that others refuse to look at

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:28am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

So chook prefers an old queen shock jock and a fake lord over the CSIRO and NASA, thanks chook, that tells us a lot about you and how your brain works.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by progressiveslol on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:44am

The video has been updated to a higher quality on the OP.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:45am

astro_surf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 7:57pm:

Monckton said "Lord Monckton said he was given a pin by a US professor who felt he deserved one for his work and he sometimes wore it as a joke."

I guess you take it or not as he says. As I dont have anything against him, then my will to chase him over it is less than yours, so I would just take it as he says.

I am sure he is of the understanding that he will be scrutinized more than most, so I dont feel he is dumb enough to think he could get away with something so easily checked.

How come Monckton "debates" in front of an uneducated audience instead of, say, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) General Assembly, who recently met in Australia?

I think deep down you already know the answer to that question.

How about Flannery and Garnaut debate the science? toudblt is, both of these bozos know little of the science but plenty of the hysteria.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:48am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

So chook prefers an old queen shock jock and a fake lord over the CSIRO and NASA, thanks chook, that tells us a lot about you and how your brain works.

Not quite skip, but close.
I prefer the scientists that speak on the old queen shock jocks number 1 in the country program instead, those that the wedwetting left seem to continually ignore.
They obviously hate it when Gloria trots out those inconvenient numbers and statistics that clearly show up the end of the world nervous nellies for what they are. Total panic merchants.
And the fake lord also gets his information from scientists who don't subscribe to the left wing doomsday cult with their latest superstitious predictions.
Once again, the CSIRO and NASA are singing from the same hymn book, and are quoting 'facts' from before their existence.
Which means someone is making things up, and these organisations are using these guesstimates as 'facts'.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:53am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:48am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

So chook prefers an old queen shock jock and a fake lord over the CSIRO and NASA, thanks chook, that tells us a lot about you and how your brain works.

Do you have some links or names of these so called "scientists" that speak on Gloria's show???? I want to see who it is you're basing your whole opinion on. You see we hear from the confusionalist lobby that there are scientists who don't believe in climate change, but we never see them, we only see the shock jocks and the tabloid tadpoles backed by fake lords trot out their lies. give us a link to a real scientist?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:54am

astro_surf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 7:57pm:

A better question would be why has Monckton has so many facilities cancel out after bookings have been made to hold the debate.
Who is putting pressure on these facilities to have them cancel?
And why did Monckton have to wait until the last minute to find out who he was going up against?
Was there a group of people drawing straws somewhere, and Deniss drew the short one.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:56am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:53am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:48am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

So chook prefers an old queen shock jock and a fake lord over the CSIRO and NASA, thanks chook, that tells us a lot about you and how your brain works.

How about you go to the 2GB website and go from there skip.
Or perhaps even tune in and listen for once.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:00am

Quote:

How about you go to the 2GB website and go from there skip.
Or perhaps even tune in and listen for once.

So you base your whole belief system on the opinion of people you cant even name?? they just appear on Gloria's show and you believe them?? OK, interesting. :-?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by kingofthecastle on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:05am

Oh dear skippy and astro goose.

CSIRO and the Clive Spash controversy
Recently CSIRO was in the news for allegedly suppressing the publication of a research paper that was critical of government policy on climate change.
In his paper, the author, Clive Spash, basically argues that an emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases is not a good idea. CSIRO management asked Clive to withdraw the paper after it had already been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.
The controversy made quite a splash in the media, particularly in the Australian newspaper (e.g. see here, here) and was reported around the world, with CSIRO copping a lot of flack.
Reading the available material, it seems to me that the story is a bit more nuanced than came across in the media.
The heart of the issue is CSIRO's Policy on Public Comment by CSIRO Staff. The policy basically says it encourages public statements by CSIRO researchers, subject to some constraints. The critical constraint in this case is "Policy Statement 3. CSIRO staff should not advocate, defend or publicly canvass the merits of government or opposition policies (including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or State or local or foreign governments)."
In explaining this policy, the document says:
As representatives of CSIRO, staff should avoid making direct comment for or against government or opposition policy. In this respect, CSIRO policy may differ from some Australian universities; CSIRO differs in that it is a Commonwealth Government agency. This gives CSIRO the advantage that it can participate directly in the internal policy development processes of government.
As Commonwealth officials CSIRO employees are bound by the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters – November 1989. These guidelines state that Commonwealth officials:
Should not advocate, defend or canvass the merits of government policies (including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or State or foreign governments).

Now, there is something that I didn't hear in the media. The constraint is not specific to CSIRO - it applies to all Commonwealth employees. CSIRO staff may be researchers, but they are still Commonwealth employees

Read more.

http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/pd/pd0162.htm

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:13am

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:05am:

Where does it say clive is a climate change confusionalist??? just because he may be critical of policy does not in any way suggest he is a climate change confusionalist, lovey.
When you read my post for the FIRST TIME you'll see I'm asking for climate change confusionalists that are qualified scientists, keep up with the program, sweety.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by progressiveslol on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:17am

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:05am:

It says "This gives CSIRO the advantage that it can participate directly in the internal policy development processes of government" but yet cant have a peer-reviewed papers on the policies that it has direct development of.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:31am

Where does it say the scientist is a climate change denier????????????

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:40am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:00am:

Quote:

How about you go to the 2GB website and go from there skip.
Or perhaps even tune in and listen for once.

So you base your whole belief system on the opinion of people you cant even name?? they just appear on Gloria's show and you believe them?? OK, interesting. :-?

Can't remember everyones name skip, and neither can you.
And these people aren't believed because they turn up, they are beleived because they make sense.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:49am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:40am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:00am:

Quote:

How about you go to the 2GB website and go from there skip.
Or perhaps even tune in and listen for once.

So you base your whole belief system on the opinion of people you cant even name?? they just appear on Gloria's show and you believe them?? OK, interesting. :-?

Can't remember everyones name skip, and neither can you.
And these people aren't believed because they turn up, they are beleived because they make sense.

that's OK I just wanted to see why you are a climate change denier, I understand now,you believe " people that appear on Gloria's show who SAY they are climate scientists" but you cant even name them, yep ,sounds great.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:54am

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:05am:

Can't have dissenters in the CSIRO ranks King.
This scientist must learn to toe the party line, or else the left wing bedwetters in the organisation will have him sacked.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:06am

Quote:

Can't have dissenters in the CSIRO ranks King.
This scientist must learn to toe the party line, or else the left wing bedwetters in the organisation will have him sacked.

Please point out where he says he doesn't believe in climate change,TA.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Verge on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:33am

Entertaining watch.

Lord Monkton was very quick with a few of the journalists, and it was nice to see him return fire to them utilising their own spin.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by kingofthecastle on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:35am

Verge wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:33am:

Entertaining watch.

Lord Monkton was very quick with a few of the journalists, and it was nice to see him return fire to them utilising their own spin.

Australian journalists are fourth rate.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:40am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:49am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:40am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:00am:

Quote:

How about you go to the 2GB website and go from there skip.
Or perhaps even tune in and listen for once.

So you base your whole belief system on the opinion of people you cant even name?? they just appear on Gloria's show and you believe them?? OK, interesting. :-?

Can't remember everyones name skip, and neither can you.
And these people aren't believed because they turn up, they are believed because they make sense.

Well, do your research then skip and go to 2GB website.
Me a climate change denier, well no.
World history doesn't support that as the climate has been ever changing, and mankind survived and thrived.
Greenland in the south of the country one day will be green again despite what the left wing bedwetters want.
But man made influence on climate is something else again.
Because those annoying pesky percentages that Gloria often quotes with monotonous regularity just doesn't stack up to demonstrate man has any substantial influence on the climate.
And Australia's influence alone on the planets climate is so miniscule as to be irrelevant.
And to fiddle with the nations economy whilst the world stares down a looming GFC is simply insane.
EU member countries and the UK is broke, the US will be effectively broke in a fortnight.
We no longer have a $20 billion buffer, that has been frittered away on unuseable tuckshops etc and our current national debt is just staggering thanks to Labor's incompetence.
These countries are no longer talking on the news about emissions programs etc anymore.
There on the nice to have pc list.
They are too busy trying to keep their head above water so to speak, and finance is the no 1 concern for all of these nations.
Labors penchant for removing something that works to be replaced by something that wont might be very Labor 2011, but it makes no sense to the silent majority of Australians who have had a gutful of this dribble and are waking up to the fact.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:46am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:06am:

Quote:

Can't have dissenters in the CSIRO ranks King.
This scientist must learn to toe the party line, or else the left wing bedwetters in the organisation will have him sacked.

Please point out where he says he doesn't believe in climate change,TA.

I can't skip, he also didn't say that Gillard is a left handed lesbian line dancer either funnily enough. ;D
But he did state that an emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gasses is a bad idea which goes against the party line.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:48am

Quote:

but it makes no sense to the silent majority of Australians who have had a gutful of this dribble and are waking up to the fact.
Back to top

what the whole 27% of you??
Even tho a clear majority of Australians don't want a price on carbon the great majority of them still believe in man made climate change, 73% at last count, so don't get confused you are somehow mainstream, you are still in the same basket as all the other nut jobs.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:50am

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:35am:

Verge wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:33am:

Entertaining watch.

Lord Monkton was very quick with a few of the journalists, and it was nice to see him return fire to them utilising their own spin.

Australian journalists are fourth rate.

Did they become fourth rate before, or after they began to pull the governments chain.
Because it's a bit difficult finding one publication in this country who actually still support the government.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:54am

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:48am:

Quote:

but it makes no sense to the silent majority of Australians who have had a gutful of this dribble and are waking up to the fact.
Back to top

Mmmmm, well Gillard had her chance to take this to the people and passed on it much to Abbotts dismay.
And it will be a cold day in hell before the Greens are mainstream, and Labor become competent in 2011.
And we will see what numbers are what at the next election.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:03am

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

.

The thread do get away.. :)

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

.

The info is there, you could try doing your own research?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:11am

Verge wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:33am:

Entertaining watch.

Lord Monkton was very quick with a few of the journalists, and it was nice to see him return fire to them utilising their own spin.

Monckton is clearly a good showman, but that's where he starts & finishes.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 12:02pm

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:13am:

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:05am:

A few observations -
1) Climate Change is real.
2) Human impact on Climate Change is a fact, the debate is how much impact.
3) One can believe that Climate Change is real, but not accept certain government policies will successfully negate our human impact &/or those factors impacting the natural cycle.
I do not believe the current Carbon Tax, nor an ETS will successfully negate either our human or the natural changes, which are impacting our Climate.
4) I do accept that Climate Change is real and there are enormous amounts of information to confirm we are heading toward another Warming Peak, which will most likely be followed by another Ice Age.
5) I do accept the scientific arguments that say human input is impacting the Climate and that it is likely to be forcing us towards future Climatic parameters that would not otherwise have happened.
6) I do not accept the argument often put about our input being very low, is absolutely erroneous. It is all about maintaining a balance and if that balance is lost, then there will be ramifications.
7) For those who say, we've been in this position before and we have thrived, perhaps you may want to research just how close to extinction we came in the last Ice Age.
You may also like to look at the fact that the enormous growth in human populations has mainly happened over the 200 years, in conjunction with a massive growth in "Fossil Fuels", which has been the primary driver of Population & Economic growth, but also of Climate Change.
Those "Fossil Fuels" are finite, they are now Peaking and in the decades ahead the Decline of those "Fossil Fuels", will again induce massive changes in Population levels/growth, Economics & in the Climate.

For all of that, I believe that we owe it to future generations, to at least try to maintain the Climate band suitable to human survival and that not withstanding some other very pressing issues, Climate Change is the greastest single issue we now face!

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Maqqa on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 12:55pm

If humans only contribute 1% to the overall carbon emissions then how does this "balance" thing look like?

In order to achieve this "balance" thing humans have got to be contributing 50%?

Are we anywhere near 50% or closer to 1%

If we don't know then how can anyone profess "balance" to things

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 1:53pm

Maqqa wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 12:55pm:

We've been thru this Ad nauseam, Maqqa.
YOU are simply doing Political SPIN, YOU have no interest in the truth!

That said and for the benefit of others, who may not be beyond redemption, let's look at balance and start with "how do we (humans) get fat"?

Of course, THE ANSWER INS'T that we woke up one day and found that we had put on 80kg, since yesterday!

THE REAL ANSWER IS, we generally do it in small chunks, day in & day out, for years and the weight slowly builds in tiny increments, similar to GHG's & the Climate.

But, "all of a sudden" our doctor says, your overweight and it could cause a heart attacked, a stroke and it has caused your Diabetes, all of which can & will kill you, if you don't take preventive actions to control it.

All of which is akin to Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner.

They are both heading for a cliff, but the Road Runner knows he can stop quicker, so he brakes at the very last moment, Wile E. Coyote brakes a moment later, but because his brakes aren't quite as good, he is left BALANCING on the edge of the cliff.
The road Runner thinks for a moment, he should help Wile, so he doesn't fall, but then remembers Wile E. will chase him again & again, until he catches him.

So, the Road Runner gives Wile E. Coyote the slightest of pushes and increases Wile E's momentum by oh say one tenth of 1%, but it is enough to send Wile E. over the cliff edge.

So it's R.I.P Wile E. Coyote and for similar reasoning, perhaps R.I.P Humanity, if we continue to listen to idiots like Maqqa.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAJNCffvtuaVow2X-rNi603LLslp0802p4mc9As40dQf0RwvF-

PS - This is also a lesson in Momentum, Weight & Gravity.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 2:47pm

We all know this carbon tax was a Greens policy, and as we all know, Greens policies are ill conceived ideas showing no true mathematics or science to persuade people to adopt them. That’s why its taken Labor nearly 6 moths to formulate a carbon tax on paper, because the Greens wanted a carbon tax but didn’t have the intellect to have one of their own.

Many of you might think I have deliberately been a smart arse by saying that Australians are getting an international reputation as being dim-witted and backward, but that’s not the case. I personally don’t care what you think of me, but as a family unit, we would not have agreed to send our children half way around the world to finish their education in Europe if there was even the slightest chance that the information about Australian intelligence was wrong or was being misrepresented.

When the time comes that Australia ranks behind China as a destination for medical personnel wanting to work and practice in - then something is seriously bloody wrong with the internals of your country… Ever wondered why you don’t see many Asian doctors & nurses anymore, and that most of the foreign doctor and nurses now look like they have crawled out of the sands of the Middle East somewhere?

The debate between Lord Monckton and Dr. Dennis proves my previous statements beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Monckton owned Dennis from the very first salvo when he introduce facts and figures that Dennis could not disprove. He simply made Dennis look like a year 8 drop out.

My sister-in-law was at the conference, and she was cringing with embarrassment - especially when that idiot reporter asked Lord Monckton about the House of Lords.

She told us that when he said he was taking the fee kick; only about 30% of the audience in the room had the intelligence to understand what had happened and what he meant - and vigorously clapped him for his audaciousness.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 2:54pm

Greens policies are ill conceived ideas showing no true mathematics or science

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Disclaimer I am laughing AT culldav not with her.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:15pm

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Greens policies are ill conceived ideas showing no true mathematics or science

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Disclaimer I am laughing AT culldav not with her.

The only thing you farm on a regular basis is Alevines bum roo-girl. We all know you and Alevine are gay lovers, and Bob is your “pin-up” boy, so don’t be frightened to come out of the closet little one.

One, two, three, four…Alevine will be here soon to make a comment to protect his lover (roo-girl) from the mean and nasty culldav… diddums. :'( :'(

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:23pm

culldav wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Greens policies are ill conceived ideas showing no true mathematics or science

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Disclaimer I am laughing AT culldav not with her.

poor little culdav, everyone pokes fun at her. :D :D :D

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Imperium II on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:26pm

this forum got inundated with the worst people ever when the yahoo invasion began

the only good member to come out of it was dsmithy

the rest are trash men

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by kingofthecastle on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:27pm

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:23pm:

culldav wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Greens policies are ill conceived ideas showing no true mathematics or science

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Disclaimer I am laughing AT culldav not with her.

poor little culdav, everyone pokes fun at her. :D :D :D

If that's what you think rooshit that's fine but most here seem to make fun of you. You do have a following from the rats of the left I must admit.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Imperium II on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:29pm

del_has_returned.. has returned

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:33pm

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:29pm:

del_has_returned.. has returned

How could you tell Imp? for me the give up was the way he follows me around like the good little puppy dog that he is, my own little bitch.i

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:43pm

While one-liner boy laughs at his own amusements, and basks in the sunshine of Bob’s crack, we have been environmentally self-sufficient for the past 27 months without having to reduce our own intelligence and worship Bob or his idiot clan 'the greens".

There are some sad little people out there in the community who think that because you want or offer an alternative lifestyle you have to be a greenie. LOL

These are the morons Bob and his band of very merry men rely and count upon..

Welcome to Bob’s sucker brigade roo-girl…

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Imperium II on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:47pm

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:33pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:29pm:

del_has_returned.. has returned

How could you tell Imp? for me the give up was the way he follows me around like the good little puppy dog that he is, my own little bitch.

the fact that he is folllowing you around and the use of the number 1 to evade the censor when he writes words like sh*t

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by skippy. on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:54pm

culldav wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:43pm:

It looks like culldav is jealous I have another bitch, in kingofthecastle, don't worry you can still be my whipping boy nuf nuf, I know you crave my attention. ;D ;D ;D
DISCLAIMER these smilies are purley to laugh AT culldav.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by kingofthecastle on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:55pm

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:33pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:29pm:

del_has_returned.. has returned

How could you tell Imp? for me the give up was the way he follows me around like the good little puppy dog that he is, my own little bitch.

the fact that he is folllowing you around and the use of the number 1 to evade the censor when he writes words like sh*t

sh!t, shiit, sh/t, sh(t, sh)t, poo, sh[t, sh]t, bullshit. Confusing isn't it.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:18pm

.iiiiii

Yep. When a thread gets filled with nonsence posts yer know the climate hysteric types are attempting to run away from a debate .. :)

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27pm

.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

Hmmm... No reply, looks like Doctor Jolly has done a runner.. :)

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:46pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 6:56am:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

A predictable response. when you've got nothing else, fall back on the conspiracy angle.

Tell you what, i've supported my claim with evidence, you deny the evidence, now the onus is on YOU to show a peak scientific body that in anyway disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

I won't be holding my breath! ;D

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:53pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27pm:

.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

Hmmm... No reply, looks like Doctor Jolly has done a runner.. :)

.

You can't prove a negative, you dipsh1t! How about YOU present a scientific opinion that denies there has been warming over the last 100 years, you goddamn bottom feeding reject.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:08pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:45am:

How about Flannery and Garnaut debate the science? toudblt is, both of these bozos know little of the science but plenty of the hysteria.

Why would two non-climate scientists "debate" climate science? How come Monckton et. al. only "debate" in front of ignorant audiences and not in front of any one of the dozens of geophysical societies that meet each year to debate REAL science???

The answer isn't that hard to glean.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:13pm

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:03am:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

.

The thread do get away.. :)

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

.

The info is there, you could try doing your own research?

errr, perceptions_now. yer the one making the claim. Best you show us the references.. :-?

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:26pm

The most worrying thing to me regarding this whole debate is that Gillard, Greens and the Liberals have made NO reference to reducing any other pollutant like carbon monoxide and other petro-chemicals which are far more dangerous to humanity than carbon dioxide.

Why has NO OTHER dangerous chemical or pollutant been identified as been as hazard to humanity, and therefore warrant a tax?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:09pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:13pm:

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:03am:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

.

The thread do get away.. :)

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

.

The info is there, you could try doing your own research?

errr, perceptions_now. yer the one making the claim. Best you show us the references.. :-?

.

Like I said, they are 3 respected organisations, they have websites, look it up!

The short version is, "get off you butt & do your own research"!

But, you won't because you are not interested in the truth, like a few others on this website & others.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:16pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:48am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

You may like to go with NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO, for starters.

Yes, who do I believe? the CSIRO and NASA or a fake lord and Gloria Jones???????

So chook prefers an old queen shock jock and a fake lord over the CSIRO and NASA, thanks chook, that tells us a lot about you and how your brain works.

..........................

Looking for a link to a well known scientist who is a climate change sceptic? I think Prof. Richard Lindzen fits that description. :-..........
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic of global warming[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.[3].................

Also please look at the following link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

It is always good to question the science.

As well as the science, there are definitely signs that the world does not want to go down the Carbon Tax / ETS road. There are serious doubts that a carbon tax will make any difference at all, according to the Wall Street Journal, and they think that Australia's government is strange in going ahead with it.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:32pm

[quote author=olive_clancy link=1311115904/135#135 date=1311250604]

Yes. And his published work has consistently been found to be flawed and his predictions, going back decades, have consistently failed to pan out.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=94&&n=711

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Luke Fowler on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:56pm

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

I see they finally got someone to come forward to go up against Monckton.
He was concerned the other day that he was going to be the only speaker there.
Dennis obviously drew the short straw and was the sacrifical lamb.
Lord Monckton steamrolled over the top of Dennis as expected.

A classic case of style over substance.

When "Not" lord Mochkton publishs a scientific paper for peer review, then we can take him seriously.

ROSS GREGORY GARNAUT. Where is his published scientific paper for peer review?

Heres a few:

2011 “Making the international system work for the platinum age of Asian growth”, in S. Armstrong and V. T. Thanh (eds), International Institutions and Asian Development, Routledge Publishing, Abingdon and New York, pp. 25-48.

2010 “The New Australian Resource Rent Tax: the resources super profits tax”, Insights: Melbourne Business and Economics, Volume 8, November 2010, pp. 11-19.

2010 “Thirty Years of Chinese Reform and Economic Growth” in J. Lin, Y. Yao and H. Wu (eds), Reform and Development in China: What Can China Offer the Developing World, Routledge Publishing, Cornwall, pp. 82-98.

2010 “Macro-Economic Implications of the Turning Point”, China Economic Journal, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 181-190.

2010 “The Turning Point In Chinese Economic Development: a conceptual framework and new empirical evidence” Chapter 2 in R. Garnaut, J. Golley and L. Song (eds) China: The Next 20 Years of Reform and Development, ANU E Press, Canberra, co-published with the Social Sciences Academic Press (China), pp. 19-38.

2010 “Policy Framework for Transition to a Low-Carbon World Economy”, Asian Economic Policy Review, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2010, pp. 19-33.

2010 “Climate Change and the Great Crash of 2008” in I. Jubb, P. Holper and W. Cai (eds), Managing Climate Change: Papers from the Greenhouse 2009 Conference, CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, pp. 17-28.

2009 (With Frank Jotzo, Stephen Howes and Peter Sheehan) “The Implications of Rapid Development for Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation”, in D. Helm and C. Hepburn (eds), The Economics and Policy of Climate Change, Oxford University Press, pp. 81-106.

2009 “China’s Place in a World in Crisis”, in R. Garnaut, Ligang Song and Wing Thye Woo (eds), China’s New Place in a World in Crisis, Australian National University E-Press (Canberra), Brookings Institution Press (Washington) and Social Sciences Academic Press (China).

2009 “Economic Society of Australia’s Distinguished Fellow for 2009 Acceptance Speech”, Economic Papers, Vol. 28, No. 3, September, 2009, pp. 184-185.

2009 “Climate Change and Indonesia: in honour of Panglaykim”, Bulletin of
Indonesian Economic Studies, Volume 45, Number 1, pp. 107-116.

2009 “Climate Change and Agricultural Mutation”, in A. G. Brown (editor),
Agriculture in a Changing Climate: the new international research frontier, Record of
a conference conducted by the ATSE Crawford Fund, Parliament House,
Canberra 3 September 2008, Goanna Print, Canberra, pp. 55-59.

2008 (With Frank Jotzo and Stephen Howes) “China’s rapid emissions growth
and global climate change policy”, in L. Song and W. T. Woo (eds) China’s
Dilemma: Economic Growth, The Environment And Climate Change , Asia Pacific
Press, Canberra, pp. 170-189.

2008 “Will Climate Change Bring an End to the Platinum Age?”, Asian-Pacific
Economic Literature, May 2008, Volume 22 Number 1, pp. 1-14.

2008 “Measuring the Immeasurable: the costs and benefits of climate change
mitigation”, Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, November 2008, Volume 22
Number 2, pp. 1-13.

2008 (With Ligang Song and Yang Yao) “Impact and Significance of State-
Owned Enterprise Restructuring in China” in B. M. Fleisher, N. C. Hope,
A. A. Pena (eds) Policy Reform and Chinese Markets: Progress and Challenges,
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, pp. 38-70.

2007 (with David Vines) “Regional Free-Trade Areas: sorting out the tangled
spaghetti”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 23, Number 3, 2007,
pp. 508-527.

2007 “Sir John Grenfell Crawford” in J. E. King (editor) A Biographical
Dictionary of Australian and New Zealand Economists, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cornwall, pp. 74-79.

2007 “One Man’s Contribution”, Quadrant, No. 436 (Vol. LI No. 5) May 2007
pp. 90-91.

2006 “What does this mean for Australia?” in Conference Proceedings, Global
Forces 2006, Australian Strategic Policy Conference, Canberra, pp. 75-77.

2006 “Real Australians in Economics” in B. V. Lal and A. Ley (eds) The Coombs:
A House of Memories, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The
Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 125-148.

2006 “The Turning Point in China’s Economic Development” in R. Garnaut
and L. Song (eds), The Turning Point in China’s Economic Development, Asia
Pacific Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 1-11.

2006 (with Yiping Huang) “Continued Rapid Growth and the Turning Point in
China’s Economic Development”, in R. Garnaut and L. Song (eds), The
Turning Point in China’s Economic Development, Asia Pacific Press, The
Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 12-34.

With more here:

http://www.rossgarnaut.com.au/Papers.html

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Soren on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:29pm

astro_surf wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 10:32pm:

Is www.skepticalscience.com peer reviewed?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:44pm

Soren wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 11:29pm:

Is www.skepticalscience.com peer reviewed?

No. But it sources almost exclusively peer reviewed sources, so if you want to check the source for yourself then you can.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:41am

I suppose that we are all interested in the "science". Speaking for myself, I have read and re-read both sides of this argument, over and over, and still I find myself questioning "what is the truth?"
I also suppose that if the world is warming (at an alarming rate) then the world's governments should be insisting on ALL countries cutting back emissions...not cherry picking those that can and those that can't. It seems China is going to keep building coal-fired power stations at a great rate no matter what anyone says as is India ...and other countries are simply not going to do a thing because they are worried by their huge indebtedness and, of course, the next election. I don't see the global warming scientists suggesting all countries on earth should immediately go to nuclear energy, without any delay.....no...that seems to clash with their "green" consciences, even though nuclear energy would "save the planet". Certainly no other coal producing country is going to go the way Australia intends to...even if it means killing off the planet.
No wonder skepticism is so prevalent.
I came across this article....which should give some of you a chuckle:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
Don't Miss it! Climate Depot's Factsheet on 1970s Coming 'Ice Age' Claims Visit Site

'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media'
Tuesday, October 06, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970's. (NYT: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974

A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports Warning of Global Cooling:

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely – September 23, 2009)

1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age" - CIA Feared Global Cooling - Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:47am

As a result they ordered several studies of the world's climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ....the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.

1975 Newsweek: "The Cooling World," Newsweek. April 28, 1975 By Peter Gwynne

Excerpt: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. [...] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” [...] Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

1975 New York Times: "Climate Changes Called Ominous,", June 19, 1975 - Harold M. Schmeck, - p. 31. Excerpt: “The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years. [...] The report also noted that periods of benign climate comparable to the present are unusual and have existed for about 8 percent of the last 700,000 years.”

1974 New York Times: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output,", August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck - p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. [...] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world's weather and agriculture.

1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 – By Walter Sullivan - Excerpt: Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that is may already begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain's growing season for crops by two weeks.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:51am

1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974 - Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

Newsweek admitted it erred in reporting on predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970's – October 24, 2006 - Excerpt: It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.” Even then, Adler wasn't quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn't 'wrong' in the journalistic sense of 'inaccurate,'” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added. However, the story admitted both Time magazine and Newsweek were wrong on the subject – Newsweek as recently as 1992.

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent critic of the man-made global warming fears today, recalls how pervasive the coming ice age scare was when he was in graduate school. "When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest,” Michaels said.

1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

1976 Book: "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun" By Lowell Ponte - Excerpt: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."

Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. (LINK)

Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming,” Business and Media Institute, By R. Warren Anderson, Dan Gainor, Dan (2006) - Excerpt: The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can't decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

1978: “Trends and Variations of Mean Temperature in the Lower Troposphere,” AMS Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 106, No. 3 (March), pp. 413-416. - Harley, W. S.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:53am

1971: "The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth's Surface." J. Applied Meteorology 10: 703-14. - Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr.

Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1975). "A Reassessment of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of Long-Term Changes of Global Temperature." In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am

.

Quote:

via perceptions_now:
Like I said, they are 3 respected organisations, they have websites, look it up!

The short version is, "get off you butt & do your own research"!

But, you won't because you are not interested in the truth, like a few others on this website & others.

Well perceptions_now, i caint see just where yer claims are written so yer just better show me.. :)

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:38am

.

Quadrant covers the debate...

Australia Institute loses debate

"The dire warnings that the kids at GetUp!, the ALP’s attack dogs, were going to buy 100 seats at the Monckton/Denniss debate and cause some embarrassment for Lord Moncton came to nothing. Were they there? If so they may as well have saved the $7,000 in seating charges and stayed home. The whole hour of the debate at the National Press Club in Canberra turned out to be a rather civilised, well mannered affair.

Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute gave his opening address, Lord Monckton gave his. Then it was questions from the floor. Unfortunately, for those with a gladiatorial instinct there was no verbal biffing or below-the-belt punches. What there was though was the realisation that Richard Denniss had pulled the fight. His only basis premise was that the science was settled. That most unscientific of gods, consensus was his one and only argument. When Monckton stated that it was the challenging of consensus that marked the advancement of science, Denniss ducked the issue.

Instead Denniss called upon things like the need for “global insurance” and compared climate realism with the diagnosis for cancer and its treatment, insinuating that climate realists were like people seeking herbal remedies. This and a whole host of such similes, did nothing to advance the argument of the warmists beyond consensus, consensus, consensus.

His lordship on the other hand moved about the national Press Club forum like, well, to borrow a worn-out phrase from the past, he “danced like a butterfly and stung like a bee”. Monckton offered Facts, examples, logical questions, straight answers. It was no contest. We had heard..." continues - http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/07/australia-institute-loses-debate

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:16am

astro_surf wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 9:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:45am:

How about Flannery and Garnaut debate the science? toudblt is, both of these bozos know little of the science but plenty of the hysteria.

Yes, we wouldn't want any debate in front of the Press gallery.
We don't want those ignoramuses learning anything.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:19am

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 3:26pm:

this forum got inundated with the worst people ever when the yahoo invasion began

the only good member to come out of it was dsmithy

the rest are trash men

Was this a better place when it was inhabited only by left wing bedwetters then?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:22am

olive wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:53am:

Outstanding list of left wing scientific dud predictions there Olive.
Flannery's only an amateur soothsayer next to those on your list.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 10:29am

Is the reduction of carbon monoxide also being targeted equally to carbon dioxide in the Greens carbon tax?

Urban pollution

Carbon monoxide is a major atmospheric pollutant in some urban areas, chiefly from the exhaust of internal combustion engines (including vehicles, portable and back-up generators, lawn mowers, power washers, etc.), but also from improper burning of various other fuels (including wood, coal, charcoal, oil, paraffin, propane, natural gas, and trash).

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Doctor Jolly on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 10:40am

Olive, the scientific community is always publishing differing interpretations of data. Those published articles are peer-reviewed, and the ones that are wrong are generally orphaned out on the periphery of science.

The review process is an amazing system. It lets all scientists put forward positions, but only the positions that can hold their own against review survive.

So, all the articles you have posted are these periphery ones. Ones that didnt hold up on review and are therefore not part of the scientific consensus. They are of course, still published. So anyone whose express wish is to discredit science, can claim them as gospel (incorrectly).

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by philperth2010 on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:03am

Why are we even entertaining Lord Monkton......All political parties within Australia agree that global warming is happening and action is required.....The debate is about which policy will be the most effective in changing our economy to low emissions.....Arguing against the scientific consensus supporting climate change is not going to change the facts and provides ignorance not enlightenment.....Unless the Monkton or his supporters can provide peer reviewed research that contradicts the science they have nothing to offer anyone.....If the Monkton has real evidence that global warming is not happening then he needs to provide his research for peer review and allow it to be scrutinized and deal with skepticism like the research he denies....Monkton has only proven he can question science he has not proven he can deal with it in a peer reviewed process.....When Monkton can present his findings for peer review and stand up to scrutiny he can be taken seriously.....Until then NO political parties in this country believe him.....Having an opinion is not a crime.....Pretending that this opinion is anything but a guess is disturbing!!!

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC), Law

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by philperth2010 on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:07am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 10:40am:

Agreed Doc.....Lord Monkton and his supporters have nothing to offer anyone accept an opinion!!!

::)

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Doctor Jolly on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:13am

Yes, there is massive abuse by laymen trying to hijack the scientific process.

Science leaves itself open to selective discrediting because it actively encourages differing opinions. That is its great strength. It isnt a church where you are told what to believe. It is a consensus of opinion that is continually challanged. Organically moving to a greater understanding.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by philperth2010 on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:27am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:13am:

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
Ashley Montague

;)

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:36am

Yes indeed, laymen have been trying to hijack science, and maybe that’s the reason why there is no mention of reducing CARBON MONOXIDE in the Greens carbon tax.

As Lord Monckton said: “…do your homework.” That includes looking at all the information provided, and maybe you guys can explain why the more dangerous pollutant of carbon monoxide was left off the carbon tax agenda?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by philperth2010 on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:10pm

culldav wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:36am:

Good question...The answer rests with Tony Abbott scarring the public with increased fuel prices.....Abbott's policy is about.....doing nothing......believing nothing.....achieving nothing......We can all rest easy in the knowledge Tony Abbott will save us from our $10.00 a week carbon tax and give us $1.50 tax cut to boot.....That will be worth voting for???

::)

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:31pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:10pm:

culldav wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:36am:

Don't you think its fair and reasonable that Juliar & Bob were asked the same question?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Equitist on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:33pm

culldav wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:10pm:

culldav wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:36am:

Don't you think its fair and reasonable that Juliar & Bob were asked the same question?

By all means, folks, ask and digest the same questions of both sides - and then can we puuurleaaaase just move on like responsible adults and start co-operatively planning to meet the real and pressing challenges to work towards a positive, prosperous, fair, safe, stable and sustainable future for one and all!?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by nichy on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:39pm

CARBON emissions trading might be useless at tackling climate change but it is proving to be highly profitable for the financial engineers behind it – men like the godfather of pollution trading, an American called Richard Sandor, who was one of the founders of financial derivatives in the 1980s at junk bond trader Drexel Burnham Lambert.

It was at Drexel Burnham Lambert that Sandor pioneered the “collateral mortgage obligations” that eventually brought the financial markets to their knees. He was also architect of the first pollution permit trading scheme (in sulphur emissions) in the US in the 1990s.

Today he chairs the company controlling more than 80 percent of EU carbon emissions trading, Climate Exchange plc, which regularly launches “innovative” carbon products such as daily futures contracts and has set up trading exchanges in China, Canada and Australia.

Private Eye, No. 1258, 19 March – 1 April 2010

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Doctor Jolly on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm

To all these communists who denounce the free market, please consider that highly efficient markets in FX, equities, commodities and cash underpin our very lifestyle.
The market always gravitates toward the most efficient solution, by its very nature, it always find the balance between buyers and sellers.

There is no better system.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Equitist on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm:

If only the theory was borne out in practice - unbridled markets have wreaked much social, economic and environmental havoc and destruction and there is probably much worse to come in the near future...

Perhaps most notably, is the fact that: under-regulated markets are fueling the rapid and exponential extraction of finite resources - without pricing the value of those resources in terms of costs-benefits, opportunity costs, absolute deprivation and sustainability deficits to future generations of humanity!

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:45pm

I watched that video again last night.
I was surprised how easy Monckton was using the IPCC's own dodgy statistics against Denniss, who had no real answers to counter with.
Monckton won the debate hands down.
Little wonder Monckton was initially concerned it was going to be a one man show.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Doctor Jolly on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 1:57pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm:

It is not the markets role to manage finite resources. That is up to the government. The Markets role is to find a fair price balancing supply and demand. To blame the market for the things you have said above is about a logically as blaming a bacon sandwich.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by culldav on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm

nichy wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:39pm:

looks like anything he touches turns to shyte doesn't it? Wonder does Juliar know all about this?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 4:12pm

.

1 April 2010, April fools day.. ;)

culldav wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

nichy wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:39pm:

looks like anything he touches turns to shyte doesn't it? Wonder does Juliar know all about this?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 4:17pm

.

astro_surf wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 8:53pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 7:27pm:

.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

.

Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist

Hmmm... No reply, looks like Doctor Jolly has done a runner.. :)

.

You can't prove a negative, you dipsh1t! How about YOU present a scientific opinion that denies there has been warming over the last 100 years, you goddamn bottom feeding reject.

astro_surf runs away screaming insults.. ;D

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:29pm

.

Richard Treadgold comments on the one sided 'debate'.. :)

"Viscount Monckton of Brenchley opened his debate at the National Press Club in Australia two days ago by reminding his audience that England not only took the Ashes off Australia, but also held on to them in the next rematch. He said: “I just thought I’d rub it in.” Then he proceeded to take his cudgel to his feeble debating opponent.

Economist Richard Deniss must be no intellectual weakling, but he gave the impression of not knowing where he was, so he said the things he normally said. Which usually works, because his normal audience has heard them before and agrees with him. But here, he floundered and had no idea what he was doing.

He definitely didn’t know what we were doing, which was measuring the two men against each other, and he didn’t realise we wanted facts about the climate. He kept reiterating his bewilderment that “sceptics” disagreed about climate change measures, or how important it was to bow to the scientific consensus. The stodgy stratagem was leaden against the sparkling, acrobatic and keenly wielded wit of his opponent Monckton.

He stood no chance. He might as well have spent his time scrawling “cretin” on his forehead and blinking up at the television lights with his tongue hanging out, so ineffective was his delivery. Coming as an adversary to the rapier intellect of Monckton..." continues - http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/sixes-all-around-the-park-from-monckton/ i.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:48pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:29pm:

After waiting for so long to find out who his debating adversary was going to be in the end, Lord Monckton could have been forgiven for thinking his 'debate' was to be a one man show.
The poor inept beancounter Denniss must have drawn the short straw amongst all the others who could and should have been at the press gallery that evening.
Lord Monckton ran rings around him using the 'facts' given by the IPCC and others favoured by the lefty bedwetters, poor Deniss was a lamb to the slaughter.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

How you doin, have you figured out how to use the internet yet?

Or is it that you simply have no intention of looking or accepting anything that doesn't fit your fixed opinion, so you would not pay any credence to anything raised by the likes of NOA, NASA & the CSIRO?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by progressiveslol on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Gee, I really feel sorry for you poor OLD buggers, who can't even use the internet.

Let me give you one more small hint.

Try going to Google, then -
1) Put in - the organisation concerned - ie NASA GISS
2) Add + Climate Change

You MAY be surprised at how many options there are and how much information will become available?

Although you, the Flying Bunghi and some others have no intention of reading it, much less comprehending it, because your minds are already fixed AND incorrectly so!

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:41pm

Global warming sceptic Monckton defends title

SYDNEY — High-profile climate change sceptic Lord Monckton has reacted defiantly to a request from London to stop claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, telling the chamber to "get used to it".

The outspoken Monckton inherited his title after the passing of the House of Lords Act in 1999 which stripped hereditary peers from their automatic right to sit and vote in the chamber.

But Monckton claims the Act is flawed and unconstitutional and still refers to himself as a member of the upper house, though admittedly one "without the right to sit or vote".

Questioned on his membership in Australia on Tuesday, Monckton defended his credentials by brandishing his British passport which refers to the holder as "the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley".

"The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am -- get used to it," Monckton told journalists in Canberra where he was taking part in a debate on climate change.

Clerk of the Parliaments David Beamish wrote to Monckton on July 15 asking him to cease claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication.

"You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords," the open letter published on the parliamentary website said.

"Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms."

While no one would deny Monckton was a hereditary peer, this was an entirely separate issue to membership of the House, the letter continued.

But Monckton, in Canberra to campaign against Australia's carbon tax, brushed off questions on the matter as "futile and drivelling", and called on the British parliament to publish his response on its website.

"They have not so far found the courage so far to answer," he said.

Link -
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i4fZpIOOXAhrKzfse9pchex2Hv1g?docId=CNG.19f1f6ae6eefb3013fba104606559f77.321
============================================
Another example on Monckton is Right & the others are Wrong?

I can tell you, who will win this argument & who will win the Climate Change argument and in the longer term, IT WON'T NE MONCKTON!

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by progressiveslol on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 8:45am

Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate and persuaded 9% more Australians
to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2011/1393/

This is why they need to shut down debate and shut down skeptics especially

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by olive on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 12:10pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 8:45am:

..............

I wonder how many on the left side of politics agree with the statement by progressives that "they need to shut down debate and shut down skeptics especially".. ....

Shut down debate? So that we can live as they do in North Korea perhaps? No thanks.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by astro_surf on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 12:12pm

Gary Morgan HOSTED Monckton at his Collins St fiefdom, hardly an impartial player, his polls can't be trusted for a second. Little better than push polling.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Oh dear, here's dumb ol hill farmer me asking a simple question and perceptions_now seems unable to answer.. :)

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now. Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 9:49pm

.

Has Doctor_Jolly done a runner ?.. :)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 12:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

Soren wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

I didn't watch the debate, but seeing how the righties are up in arms today I suspect that Dennis was making quite a lot of sense, and in fact it was Monckton with his usual dribble that didn't do as well as would've been hoped by the likes of progressiveslol.

With people like you supporting the whole AGW carbon tax caper, it has no hope. 5 years ago anybody could have introduced a cap and trade scheme. Now even its mildest version will cost Gillard the government.

Keep not listening, bozo.

And I rest my case that all the defensiveness of the righties shows Monckton was a little too loose. ;D

Defensivenesss? It's not my gal that's losing power at the next election.

In a way it is telling that a Scottish nob with a degree in classics (a good thing) can so easily underrmine and discredit the greatest moral challenge of our time. Why? Because the AGW boosters still have not realised that it is first a public policy debate, not a scientific one. That is the argument you are losing, the public policy argument, not the scientific one.

Hang on. Monckton is arguing the scientific one. He is saying the world is cooling. Contrary to every scientist.

Quote:

That is why you are unable to counter the the central question: how will public policy (carbon tax) impact on the science (climate).

You can't get your heads around it and the polls around the world show that people increasingly see that you can't. That's why you are losing the debate.

In Economic circles the best policy to reduce co2 emissions is a carbon price. That debate has been and gone, and the result is settled.

The science is in, the economics is in. The only thing left is confusionalists whose agenda is power or fame rather than making the world a better place to live.

Pity the fools who fall for their antics.

Doctor_Jolly please give a reference to "every scientist" who claims the world is currently warming.. :-?

.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 10:35pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Repeat -

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Perahps you could stop talkig to yourself & bone up on your internet & comprehension skills?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Flying Binghi on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:39am

.

Oh dear, here's dumb ol hill farmer me asking a simple question and perceptions_now seems unable to answer..

repeat -

More info please perceptions_now. Where do we find these claims of "every scientist" at NOAA, NASA & the CSIRO ?.. :-?

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Repeat -

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Perahps you could stop talkig to yourself & bone up on your internet & comprehension skills?

perceptions_now, ah geuss then with yer 'skills' that you could give me a direct link and allso a quote from the link to back up yer claims ?.. :-?i
.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by perceptions_now on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 12:48pm

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27am:

.

Quote:

I cant seem to find the information either. It must be true because we here it plenty, but just not when we look for it.

Repeat -

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Perahps you could stop talkig to yourself & bone up on your internet & comprehension skills?

perceptions_now, ah geuss then with yer 'skills' that you could give me a direct link and allso a quote from the link to back up yer claims ?.. :-?

.

You've heard of the "user pays principle", well I prefer the "user learns principle".

Simply put, if YOU DO THE RESEARCH, then YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO ACT, on YOUR FINDINGS!

So, I'm sure you will excuse me, as I have already given you a few pointers in the correct direction, if I leave you to it and in parting, I RECOMMEND YOU TO THE GOYA PRINCIPLE!

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Lepper on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 4:34pm

That was terrible. Regardless of who won, it was essentially a pointless debate. We need real authorities debating this. Not economists and public speakers.

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 8:48am

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 11:03am:

Since when did science ever require a consensus?

Title: Re: Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next
Post by Lepper on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 9:37am

Seems Monckton was up to his usual tricks...Here is a thorough debunking of all the myths and misconceptions he came out with in this debate. Quite a lot to get through.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-17-denniss-debate-part1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-17-denniss-debate-part2.html

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Thinking Globally >> Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1311115904 Message started by progressiveslol on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:51am