gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:


For the love of god, gizmo, we disagree on this issue, that's plain. I think you've drawn the wrong conclusions due to your politics, you probably think the same about me. But you, out of all the so-called deniers on this forum, seem to be able to discern between a good argument and a bad argument, a nutjob and someone who is making a pertinent point. Do yourself a favour, disown this clown, one day you will regret ever throwing your lot in with someone like Monckton.

Don't throw away your principles because a nutjob who is good at rabble rousing happen to be espousing something you happen to agree with.

If you don't have to stick to the facts and you're free to lie, you can win just about any argument (or think you've won it).

muso wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 12:01pm:


I love examples like this - people don't buy my argument, therefore they are fooled by the other guy.

Face facts Mr Musician:  there are incomparably greater number of kooks and mongs cheering your side than there are against it. Monckton et al are successful to a large extent because of the frauds, rent seekers, Stalinists, opportunists, preening nobodies, totalitarians, doctors' wives and the like speaking out for AGW.

AGW is irrevocably ruined by too many and too loud bad arguments deployed in support of it.

astro_surf wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 11:50pm:


Apart from that, he has lifted graphs of global temperatures from a text (Curry and Clow), reversed the time scales and then claimed that they showed cooling, not warming.

He's certainly no Master of Science. He's a Master of (unashamed) Jiggerypokery.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-the-case-of-the-missing-curry/

Soren wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 10:20am:


Monckton is a clown and a proven liar.  He doesn't have any credibility in ridiculing others.

Having said that, I don't buy holus bolus every compromised decision made by every government in the world on the subject of carbon mitigation.

What I do support is increased investment in renewable energy and realistic carbon mitigation schemes.

I've said before ad nauseum that we should be concentrating on a tax on exported coal. Canada has done that, and there is no reason why  we can't do the same, and in so doing, reap some of the benefit from overseas corporations which  'rape' our natural resources with very little beneft going back to Australia.

The carbon tax itself  will be a hard sell, and It will probably end up being a suicidal move. We need to have some kind of leverage that favours renewable energy that is not likely to be removed when government changes hands - and that's a big ask. It's a serious point - maybe a good discussion point for a new thread.

The way that European countries attempted to manage the requirements of the Kyoto Protocoal was a disgrace.  Some people and corporations certainly profited from it, but the environment did not.

I don't tend to blindly follow the policies of one party over another, and I am happy to point out the mistakes made by politicians of all persuasions.

It's extremely frustrating to see how little progress we have made in renewable energy, and to see that we still have government incentives (tax holidays) to encourage large corporations to burn more coal and oil, while such incentives  don't exist for renewables.