Lord Monckton on the global warming fraud
 

I'm not up on the hacked data. I just have one question--does it debunk Al Gore's CARBON forecast? You know, the dramatic scene from "An Inconvenient Truth" where he got up on a mechanized ladder to make a point re spiking CO2 levels...?

That chart was disproved before he even got his award. He flipped the chart upside down. If you want to figure out anything these people are doing just reverse it. Seriously.

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality."
Michael Ellner

"Flattery can get you anywhere." - Well said, Lord Chirstopher Monckton. You have a clear piercing voice and a good intellect. Well done.

Now I can see why some people call you an idiot. I prefer to listen to actual experts instead of third rate talking heads like Jones or Monckton... who holds no degrees in science and has never been considered a scientist. Simple logic and observation shows that global warming is a fact.

Example: My parents just bought some property in southern Virginia in a gated community that was built in the 1950s. The community was a private ski resort back then because they used to have snow every year in those mountains. 10 years ago they had to close it because they haven't had enough snow to support skiing since the early 90s and they couldn't produce enough snow with machines.

Holy shit a ski resort in VA had to close? Omg the end is near...

The United States covers 5% of the worlds population but it is responsible for 40% of the worlds pollution. That's just as much as what China pollutes, but the Chinese population is is close to 5 times more the population of the US.

The US is the only country that has political representatives that are actually saying that Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution and you clowns stand behind these Republican liars believing them.

It's an example, simpleton. You idiots can believe what you want but it simply doesn't mesh with the facts. Saying that man doesn't affect the atmosphere is like saying that shit doesn't stink. Sometimes I amazed that you idiots have the brain capacity to breathe on your own... because you certainly can't think for yourselves.

You speak as if we walk around in 100% pollution and 40% it is from the US. When it's more like we walk around in 99% non-pollution, and out of the 1%, the US might be 40%.


Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution or man causing it at all. That isn't to say pollution shouldn't be dealt with.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shit does stink, you know....

i find it comical that the new hero for a bunch of rural populists is a british lord lol ...

What is man doing that could possibly be proven as the cause?

lol you fucking dumb motherfucker stfu

Brilliant answer... being that you have nothing else to say, why don't you shut your cock holster and move on to the 4th grade science.

:thumbsup

Why does it have to be the complete cause? Most of the time when I read articles or hear credible speakers on the subject they are not saying that man is the complete cause... just a huge contributor. It is a proven fact that Carbon Dioxide creates an insulation effect in the atmosphere... this alone is not a problem... the problem lies in the fact that we are producing more Carbon Dioxide than our global "sinks" can absorb. This is causing an increasing warming in the overall global temperature... especially in the oceans.

The biggest risk of global warming is that the ocean currents might change (a logical and "more than likely" scenario) which can cause another ice age... which is inevitable... the earth has had many ice ages... but our continued use of fossil fuels that over-saturate the atmosphere with Carbon Dioxide is accelerating that process. As the ocean currents change it affects how much Carbon Dioxide that the ocean absorbs while simultaneously affecting the circulation mechanism of heat within the oceans... which moderate the temperature of our atmosphere. This is important because in our lifetime we could see that reversal happen if we don't slow our production of these greenhouse gases... as the arctic ice melts it changes how the currents work and changes the overall length of the circulation... eventually it could disrupt the currents enough where it stops circulating as much warm water to the arctic and cause a global drop in temperature. Even 5-10 years of very short summers would cause a worldwide famine.

pollution isn't CO2. CO2 is a foundation of life itself. So by "green" logic then all people must die to save the planet. Only problem is thats what these people think and you are one of those people. If you believe this stuff why don't you just take it in your own hands and remove yourself from the equation. Problem solved.

The Oceans hold more Co2 than the atmosphere and the dirt combined together. In a single day the Oceans release more Co2 than man can release in a year. Any Volcano that erupts (which happen daily) releases more Co2 than man releases in a year, along with many other toxins.

You breath out Co2... It's a building block of ALL life. You are a Carbon based life form.

Man isn't causing the arctic ice to melt unless man is responsible for it melting over the last 10,000's of years.. and as it melts, more water warms, more co2 is released, less ice means less reflection, thus more heat.. it's a massive cycle inside many small cycles.

None of which we can stop, prevent, or control. If all of man stopped releasing co2, or polluting at every level... nothing would change in the cycles.

Just like we had nothing to do with damaging the Ozone layer, right? It's not just CO2... it's also Nitrous Oxide, Methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons and other pollutants. Yes... alot of these compounds are naturally occurring... but to simply dismiss the human effect is simplistic and ignorant of the facts.

You mean the Ozone cycle, that went away, that has happened before?

In localized areas, pollution damages the environment for long periods of time, people, and animals. That's THE reason we should be fighting to clean up our act..


Those Toxins produced by man don't register on the global scale. At this very moment, the oceans have many areas that can release enough Methane (and other toxins) to kill every Human on the planet in a single bolt of lightening.


You may want to step back and take in the grand scale of earth, the sun, everything you can see. Humans take up less than 1% of the land mass (that's exposed), have been here for less than 1% of the time, have been industrialized for no amount of time..

We aren't in control here... good or bad.

You are claiming that humans have had no effect in the amount of CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere while there is proof that we have... unless it is purely a coincidence that these gases have dramatically increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, your assertion is false. That is my point.

All the data that was compiled to prove "global warming" is gone so it cannot be checked or verified. How can anyone at this point believe that the whole affair has been anything but a fraud? :disgust

This is the group that provided the entire statistical basis for the theory of "global warming". Now that they have been exposed they claim that the data has all been "lost". Only an idiot would fail to see what an obvious fraud this is. :2 cents:

fraud my ass this shit has changed

Proof from the 80's? Today science is proving all around that man made global warming isn't true. That the "greenhouse gases" is produced by man, isn't causing global warming, assisting, aiding, or making it speed up.

Btw... now they say Co2 levels have dropped... yet the temperature has increased. Are the humans here melting the ice caps on Mars?

Our temp's have been increasing, compounding on itself and growing as it does, 10,000's of years before the Industrial Revolution. We naturally get less ice, more co2 is produced, less heat is reflected... it speeds up, as it has been doing, naturally.

Core samples from all over the world in the dirt and ice, show that this is nothing more than Cycles. Co2 and other things have been much higher in our atmosphere before and lower, it has been much hotter than now and much colder. Covered in ice, and not covered in ice.

Man made global warning is a "theory" that hasn't been proven. Global Cycles isn't a theory.

yeah... because the IPCC is entirely made up of people from that university... *sarcasm*

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html

Let me use your logic and debunk all of your "conservative" scams... shall I?

You demonstrate that you don't know anything about scientists or science in general. Whenever someone publishes a paper on a particular subject the scientists that are working on that particular subject work to disprove it. This group above does not possess the only raw data in the world... all this article shows is that this particular university published results but didn't keep the raw data to validate the results against. They are not the only university studying this issue and do not hold the key to the universe of climate change science. Only in the world of idiocracy that you live in would this be the case.

According to whom?

The emails and documents were to, from and about people all over the World. Including Obama's science czar. The very code they used had notes on how the data was manipulated.

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...ne/#more-13215

You were conned. Accept it and demand their arrest, trial, and hangings.

Because everyone knows that New Zealand is the absolute authority on climate change science. You are grasping at straws.

I think it's great that you think communism will save us all from the evil CO2 bogey-monster; but can you support its violent enforcement somewhere other than where I am?

Do you feel excited that you were able to make up some shit and accuse me of it? What does communism have to do with any of this? Nothing... you are an idiot... k thx.

Ok Mr. In Denial how about from Mr. Global Warming Fraud and partner in Blood And Gore (what a convenient name eh?) himself.

Al Gore Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admi...lobal-warming/

Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book's Cover
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ew-books-cover

You really don't know what you're in support of do you?

Emissions Trading Scheme is no less than complete government control of all industry and personal activity. A 'carbon credit' is an activity permit. Want to have kids? You'll need 10,000 credits from the government! Enjoy.

The way to make sense of global warming is to look who's behind it.

Al Gore and the highly politicized IPCC are key proponents, so you know it has to be a scam.

Climategate is likely the biggest scientific fraud ever.

If you had even a passing familiarity with this issue you would know that the emails demonstrate that the peer review process had been politicized and that dissenting opinions and analyses were ignored and the dissenting scientists were blackballed. You would also know that the missing data from East Anglia was the primary basis for the recommendations made by the IPCC.

Of course you probably already know that are just trying to obfuscate the issue. With you I never know if you are being intentionally dishonest or are just stupid. Perhaps it is a combination of the both? :winkwink:

Bullshit. They have kept the data model under wraps for years claiming it was basically state secret information. The only "peer reviews" they did were among those who were in on the scam. They ruined anyone else who went against their fraud. They discuss this all in their emails. It is and was all a big fraud. Get over it. You got played. Now get pissed and demand their heads.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

Czech President to the U.N "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
"I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition"

"That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
?When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.? He further stated that, ?Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis?.




I truly can list 1000's of articles from (Non-Political Funded) Scientists, reviewed, talked about, in magazines, debated, talked over at the U.N., and so on.. the stream of information trying to state the truth, is overwhelming.

This a very good summary of the scam. :thumbsup

You mean like the Clean Air Act of 1990, signed into law by George H.W. Bush, has done for Sulfur Dioxide emissions? Thanks for playing but the facts belay your assertions. The funny thing about this whole issue is that it tends to fall along party lines just like any other politicized issue with liberals for and conservatives against, for the most part.

Timothy Ball is a paid consultant for Oil and Natural Gas companies... go figure why he would be considered a skeptic.

The Clean Air Act has nothing to do with global warming, Co2 isn't pollution. It covers Air Pollution and Smog which is dangerous to the local environment, people, kids, animals, the food/water we take in... not the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%281990%29

The 1990 Clean Air Act is a piece of United States environmental policy relating to the reduction of smog and air pollution. It follows the Clean Air Act in 1963, the Clean Air Act Amendment in 1966, the Clean Air Act Extension in 1970, and the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977. It was enacted by the 101st United States Congress.

1 of 3 posted... sure, but that is still one of 1000's of others and his research provides backed, provable, data... that was shared.

The difference is... people proving it wrong share the data, people saying it's real, aren't sharing the data. It's hard to dispute people saying it's man made, because they don't share how they calculated the data.

What party lines? They are the same. Swap "global warming" for "terrorism" and the policies, rhetoric and all other things are identical.

And no, it's nothing to do with putting catalytic converters on cars. Try to understand what carbon trading is. Its a hand-over of the right to use energy to the government. The government will issue energy-use permits to companies and people who follow its party line.

What you could very easily end up with is individual carbon allowances -- essentially a communistic issuance of licenses replacing the right to produce value. The hand-over of power is simply enormous, and you clearly don't understand just how much this will fuck your life.

a nation of global warming "skeptics," anti-vac kooks and creationists. the education system of the good ol usa is sure churning out some braniacs. :1orglaugh

You seem to be missing the point... the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 instituted "cap and trade" for Sulfur Dioxide... what is being proposed for CO2 is exactly the same... the current Sulfur Dioxide cap and trade program is considered a success... where is the communism? It's in the bullshit that you hear from the scaremongers... they are hypocrites who have supported the same types of policies in years past but now have chosen to try and scare people with it.

Ya the ozone layer that was going to disappear and we would all be wearing space suits to go outside.. I seem to remember that being the prediction.. thanks for bringing it up. lol

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

That's why we have "Ozone Warning" days here in the south... because it's not a threat... please continue to enlighten us with your bright and shining intellect.

Is the reverse an example of what the Church turns out? IE: Sheep?

good scientists are given the title PHD - not LORD

:2 cents: