Cowardly Congress Cancels Climate Consensus Killer

[clenz]

Apparently "transparency" does not apply to anything that the donks feel they will get beat at...and this debate is one that they are quickly starting to lose...

So, nothing new to see here...

1) I wish 100% of the information was available and could be reviewed by experts with no stake in the outcome
2) Gore will never be held accountable for his inaccuracies and wild exaggerations

which is a real shame

[dbackjon]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

[clenz]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

Not the extent you want him to be. Bush has been run through the mud so many times by the media that he will no longer be respected for anything.


Gore will never be spoken of in a bad way....ever. His lies will never be known by the mass public.

[Cleets Part 2]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

Not the extent you want him to be. Bush has been run through the mud so many times by the media that he will no longer be respected for anything.


Gore will never be spoken of in a bad way....ever. His lies will never be known by the mass public.

Agreed...
there is an intense similarity

1) Both desperately wanted something that was just no so
2) Both went to extremes to get the results they desperately desired regardless of truth
3) both are heralded as hero's by the mental hunchbacks that worship them
4) both have profited financially (in a HUGE way) from their deceit

I would suggest that their crimes against humanity are a bit different however... but both are scum-bags

[native]

Not the extent you want him to be. Bush has been run through the mud so many times by the media that he will no longer be respected for anything.

Gore will never be spoken of in a bad way....ever. His lies will never be known by the mass public.

Agreed...
there is an intense similarity

1) Both desperately wanted something that was just no so
2) Both went to extremes to get the results they desperately desired regardless of truth
3) both are heralded as hero's by the mental hunchbacks that worship them
4) both have profited financially (in a HUGE way) from their deceit

I would suggest that their crimes against humanity are a bit different however... but both are scum-bags

Aha! Not quite empty!

[travelinman67]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

...speaking of folks who will NEVER admit they're wrong...

This thread is not about Bush, and bashing Lord Monckton doesn't change the facts he quotes (as he's authored MANY documents, articles and books on this subject...all available to the public...

...yet NO ONE seems to be challenging his assertions about the Global Warming scam...

Hmmmm....

Gore has been OWNED completely on this climate bullshit...and his motives were even brought into question today...yet he "laughed off" his partnership in a "green technologies" investment firm, then implied that the current Tennessee Congressman Blackburn was acting unprofessional in questioning his motives. Here's the exchange...

[youtube][/youtube]



Give it up, Jon. AGW is a myth. Climate Change alarmists are merely weaving apocalyptic tales of rising seas and 150 deg. days to "soften" the sheeple for their ultimate goal, adoption of a global, totalitarian government.

[Cleets Part 2]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

...speaking of folks who will NEVER admit they're wrong...

This thread is not about Bush, and bashing Lord Monckton doesn't change the facts he quotes (as he's authored MANY documents, articles and books on this subject...all available to the public...

...yet NO ONE seems to be challenging his assertions about the Global Warming scam...

Hmmmm....

Gore has been OWNED completely on this climate bullshit...and his motives were even brought into question today...yet he "laughed off" his partnership in a "green technologies" investment firm, then implied that the current Tennessee Congressman Blackburn was acting unprofessional in questioning his motives. Here's the exchange...

[youtube][/youtube]



Give it up, Jon. AGW is a myth. Climate Change alarmists are merely weaving apocalyptic tales of rising seas and 150 deg. days to "soften" the sheeple for their ultimate goal, adoption of a global, totalitarian government.

Typical T-man post...

Firstly:
Lord Monckton is a fruit-loop and why should your sources be above questioning..?
Particularly the sketchy Monckton, a man who profits from his Anti-global climate work

second:
You say this thread is not about Bush... yet you post about Obama in non-Obama threads..
why don't you follow your own rules of engagement..?

Third:
Blackburn is "Spot on" and Gore (like Cheney) should divest himself... but he won't

[dbackjon]

Thank you Cleets.

And Gore is correct in MANY areas. The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact.

And Marsha Blackburn is ten times worse than your personal demon Nancy Pelosi...


OWNED

[Col Hogan]

Thank you Cleets.

And Gore is correct in MANY areas. The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact.

jon, I noticed you stopped at "The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact." but did not go on to say Gore is correct or incorrect when he pushes his "Humans are responsible" agenda...

I believe the climate is changing...mostly due to normal cycles in the life of this little spinning chunk of rock we call home...and that this legislation will do nothing to alter that cycle, but will make alarmists rich...

What say you???

[travelinman67]

Thank you Cleets.

And Gore is correct in MANY areas. The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact.

And Marsha Blackburn is ten times worse than your personal demon Nancy Pelosi...


OWNED

Put your crack pipe away for the afternoon, dback...

You and Cleets are about to get owned...

AGAIN!

Lord Monckton had ALREADY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SAME COMMITTEE ON MARCH 26, 2009 and after a presentation, responded to questions from Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, his presentation was SO PERSUASIVE, that several Congressional staff REPRESENTING HOUSE MEMBERS FROM BOTH PARTIES had sent him follow up questions, some of which he was returning to respond to during yesterday's cancelled testimony.

But...

To be fair...

Since the Un-American, treasonous, piece of fecal waste that goes by the name of Waxman, chickened out and caved into THE BIGGEST LIAR IN AMERICA, AL GORE'S, REQUEST TO BAN LORD MONCKTON FROM THE HEARING...

...as a public service...

...here's Lord Monckton's written response to Reps. Markey (Dem) and Barton (Rep) sent in advance of his cancelled testimony...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... letter.pdf

And Cleets...

...you could only HOPE to be such a "quack".

Buh, bye...

(...and this time, it's by someone from the British Isles...)

[travelinman67]

...love to stay and watch the Donks twist in the wind...but I've got a race today...

...talk to you gents tomorrow.

[dbackjon]

I believe that humans have accelerated many of the NATURAL processes. Take the Arctic Sea Ice, which is incontrovertably shrinking.

For example:
While none of this can be PROVEN with 100% certainity, there is a high correlation between the expansion of Chinese Coal Plant usage and shrinking ICE. The prevailing winds take a good portion of the pollution (and Chinese Coal Plants have little pollution controls) and deposit in the Arctic. Ice is naturally highly reflective, and so a good portion of the Sun's energy bounces off with little effect on the ice. But when you place a layer of highly energy absorbent BLACK soot on the ice, that accelerates the natural melting each summer of the Arctic Ice pack.

[BlueHen86]

Thank you Cleets.

And Gore is correct in MANY areas. The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact.

jon, I noticed you stopped at "The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact." but did not go on to say Gore is correct or incorrect when he pushes his "Humans are responsible" agenda...

I believe the climate is changing...mostly due to normal cycles in the life of this little spinning chunk of rock we call home...and that this legislation will do nothing to alter that cycle, but will make alarmists rich...

What say you???

The way I see it there are two basic areas that should be studied:

1. Measurable effects - what can we actually observe (i.e. temperature change, polar ice cap change, sea level change), and what are we likely to observe in the future.

2. Man's role - are we having an effect and what can we do about it.

They should be evaluated separately with emphasis on the measurable effects so that we can make reasonable preparations (i.e. if we expect sea levels to rise a foot in the next 50 years we can modify the way we design coastal communities accordingly).

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer the question of Man's role in global warming to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know enough about our climate and it's become too much of a political issue.

The bottom line is that we need to learn what we can while at the same time not being alarmist about it.

[dbackjon]

Great post, BlueHen...

The fact is the climate is changing - and we need to be prepared for it.

[Col Hogan]

jon, I noticed you stopped at "The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact." but did not go on to say Gore is correct or incorrect when he pushes his "Humans are responsible" agenda...

I believe the climate is changing...mostly due to normal cycles in the life of this little spinning chunk of rock we call home...and that this legislation will do nothing to alter that cycle, but will make alarmists rich...

What say you???

The way I see it there are two basic areas that should be studied:

1. Measurable effects - what can we actually observe (i.e. temperature change, polar ice cap change, sea level change), and what are we likely to observe in the future.

2. Man's role - are we having an effect and what can we do about it.

They should be evaluated separately with emphasis on the measurable effects so that we can make reasonable preparations (i.e. if we expect sea levels to rise a foot in the next 50 years we can modify the way we design coastal communities accordingly).

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer the question of Man's role in global warming to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know enough about our climate and it's become too much of a political issue.

The bottom line is that we need to learn what we can while at the same time not being alarmist about it.

You are correct, sir... so correct...

[Cleets Part 2]

Thank you Cleets.
And Gore is correct in MANY areas. The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact.
And Marsha Blackburn is ten times worse than your personal demon Nancy Pelosi...
OWNED

Put your crack pipe away for the afternoon, dback...
You and Cleets are about to get owned...
AGAIN!
Lord Monckton had ALREADY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SAME COMMITTEE ON MARCH 26, 2009 and after a presentation, responded to questions from Democrats and Republicans.
In fact, his presentation was SO PERSUASIVE, that several Congressional staff REPRESENTING HOUSE MEMBERS FROM BOTH PARTIES had sent him follow up questions, some of which he was returning to respond to during yesterday's cancelled testimony.
But...
To be fair...
Since the Un-American, treasonous, piece of fecal waste that goes by the name of Waxman, chickened out and caved into THE BIGGEST LIAR IN AMERICA, AL GORE'S, REQUEST TO BAN LORD MONCKTON FROM THE HEARING...
...as a public service...
...here's Lord Monckton's written response to Reps. Markey (Dem) and Barton (Rep) sent in advance of his cancelled testimony...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... letter.pdf
And Cleets...
...you could only HOPE to be such a "quack".
Buh, bye...
(...and this time, it's by someone from the British Isles...)

Wow...
Okay, the old expression "even a broken clock is right twice a day" comes to mind regarding Monckton... he is a hired anti-climate change non-scientists nut-ball...

I do not entirely disagree with him, and I've never had an issues with him regarding climate change... I was suggesting T-man that your sources are allowed to be questioned... particularly when the source is a paid benefactor of Anti-climate change - The man is on the payroll

I did not say he was wrong or even that I disagreed... I just suggested that you might not want to be so self righteous regarding questions about the authenticity of Monckton... he's a high paid nut and pushing an agenda (just like Al Gore) or can't you see that..?

Secondly, I'm twice the quack Monckton is... and how dare you suggest otherwise - I have a 40 page dissertation with an 8 page white paper addenda that proves (beyond all inquiry) that God is the missing Higgs Boson... of which I was the runner up for the Bogolyubov Prize in 2005...

Monckton is a lazy thinking slouch... and has the scientific credibility of a cave troll

[native]

jon, I noticed you stopped at "The Globe is Warming. That is a Fact." but did not go on to say Gore is correct or incorrect when he pushes his "Humans are responsible" agenda...

I believe the climate is changing...mostly due to normal cycles in the life of this little spinning chunk of rock we call home...and that this legislation will do nothing to alter that cycle, but will make alarmists rich...

What say you???

The way I see it there are two basic areas that should be studied:

1. Measurable effects - what can we actually observe (i.e. temperature change, polar ice cap change, sea level change), and what are we likely to observe in the future.

2. Man's role - are we having an effect and what can we do about it.

They should be evaluated separately with emphasis on the measurable effects so that we can make reasonable preparations (i.e. if we expect sea levels to rise a foot in the next 50 years we can modify the way we design coastal communities accordingly).

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer the question of Man's role in global warming to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know enough about our climate and it's become too much of a political issue.

The bottom line is that we need to learn what we can while at the same time not being alarmist about it.

Scientific method! Great!

The math can get a little intimidating when studying the climate. Two of the three biggest supercomputer clusters of which I am aware are devoted to crunching the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, and we can barely predict next week, let alone next year or the next century.

But you never know how much better we can get if we try!

[Cleets Part 2]

Scientific method! Great!

The math can get a little intimidating when studying the climate. Two of the three biggest supercomputer clusters of which I am aware are devoted to crunching the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, and we can barely predict next week, let alone next year or the next century.

But you never know how much better we can get if we try!

Regarding climate and predicting...
Predicting "next week" requires an entirely different set of disciplines than predicting "next century..."

presumably regarding next week you are predicting a specific weather related event such as rain or snow - those predictions require basic meteorology or forecasting based on predictability of common standards

predicting next century requires a mixture of atmospheric science, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry...

so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...
other than the point that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about

[BlueHen86]

Scientific method! Great!

The math can get a little intimidating when studying the climate. Two of the three biggest supercomputer clusters of which I am aware are devoted to crunching the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, and we can barely predict next week, let alone next year or the next century.

But you never know how much better we can get if we try!

Regarding climate and predicting...
Predicting "next week" requires an entirely different set of disciplines than predicting "next century..."

presumably regarding next week you are predicting a specific weather related event such as rain or snow - those predictions require basic meteorology or forecasting based on predictability of common standards

predicting next century requires a mixture of atmospheric science, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry...

so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...
other than the point that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about

All I know is that if it keeps getting warmer I won't be needing my empty suit.

[native]

Scientific method! Great!

The math can get a little intimidating when studying the climate. Two of the three biggest supercomputer clusters of which I am aware are devoted to crunching the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, and we can barely predict next week, let alone next year or the next century.

But you never know how much better we can get if we try!

Regarding climate and predicting...
Predicting "next week" requires an entirely different set of disciplines than predicting "next century..."

presumably regarding next week you are predicting a specific weather related event such as rain or snow - those predictions require basic meteorology or forecasting based on predictability of common standards

predicting next century requires a mixture of atmospheric science, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry...

so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...
other than the point that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about

Points well taken, Cleets! :!

...except for maybe the very last one.

Even predicting next week requires big iron to crunch the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, but it sounds like you are on to something. Would you please elucidate more on the distinctions between weather forecasting and climate prediction?

The points I was trying to make?
First that we need to use objective scientific method.
Second that we do not yet have the tools to use objective scientific method.

Thank you for responding to my post.

[native]

...All I know is that if it keeps getting warmer I won't be needing my empty suit.

But you have such a BIG suit to fill, Bluehen!

[travelinman67]

Wow...
Okay, the old expression "even a broken clock is right twice a day" comes to mind regarding Monckton... he is a hired anti-climate change non-scientists nut-ball...

I do not entirely disagree with him, and I've never had an issues with him regarding climate change... I was suggesting T-man that your sources are allowed to be questioned... particularly when the source is a paid benefactor of Anti-climate change - The man is on the payroll

I did not say he was wrong or even that I disagreed... I just suggested that you might not want to be so self righteous regarding questions about the authenticity of Monckton... he's a high paid nut and pushing an agenda (just like Al Gore) or can't you see that..?

Secondly, I'm twice the quack Monckton is... and how dare you suggest otherwise - I have a 40 page dissertation with an 8 page white paper addenda that proves (beyond all inquiry) that God is the missing Higgs Boson... of which I was the runner up for the Bogolyubov Prize in 2005...

Monckton is a lazy thinking slouch... and has the scientific credibility of a cave troll

Three issues here:

First, Monckton has challenged the so-called "consensus" theories, and supported his challenge with specific scientific research and total transparency: The so-called "consensus" has not. So, why is Monckton's credibility being questioned and not the dubious character of the "consensus" alarmists?

Second, while questioning the expertise of a particular source, again, if "acceptable", then why not Gore, who has as little or less scientific expertise as Lord Monckton?

Third, just because someone is making a profit, doesn't mean their statements are inaccurate. In cases where there's an obvious conflict of interest, it would seem that the issue might be resolved by insisting that the potential offender provide information or facts to support their assertion. Monckton has; Gore hasn't.

Finally, as to your attempt to wrestle title to King of Quacks...

...as I well know...that is not the case. You are exceptionally capable of applying logic to political agenda, yet in so many cases, you adopt an ethos of blind trust and faith in the "attempts" of leftist social engineers to change the natural course/timeline of humanity.

Take off your blinders, and start viewing these agendas from an objective angle...and you may begin to understand why I am so passionate about "outing" the Alarmist liars.

[native]

Wow...
Okay, the old expression "even a broken clock is right twice a day" comes to mind regarding Monckton... he is a hired anti-climate change non-scientists nut-ball...

I do not entirely disagree with him, and I've never had an issues with him regarding climate change... I was suggesting T-man that your sources are allowed to be questioned... particularly when the source is a paid benefactor of Anti-climate change - The man is on the payroll

I did not say he was wrong or even that I disagreed... I just suggested that you might not want to be so self righteous regarding questions about the authenticity of Monckton... he's a high paid nut and pushing an agenda (just like Al Gore) or can't you see that..?

Secondly, I'm twice the quack Monckton is... and how dare you suggest otherwise - I have a 40 page dissertation with an 8 page white paper addenda that proves (beyond all inquiry) that God is the missing Higgs Boson... of which I was the runner up for the Bogolyubov Prize in 2005...

Monckton is a lazy thinking slouch... and has the scientific credibility of a cave troll

Three issues here:

First, Monckton has challenged the so-called "consensus" theories, and supported his challenge with specific scientific research and total transparency: The so-called "consensus" has not. So, why is Monckton's credibility being questioned and not the dubious character of the "consensus" alarmists?

Second, while questioning the expertise of a particular source, again, if "acceptable", then why not Gore, who has as little or less scientific expertise as Lord Monckton?

Third, just because someone is making a profit, doesn't mean their statements are inaccurate. In cases where there's an obvious conflict of interest, it would seem that the issue might be resolved by insisting that the potential offender provide information or facts to support their assertion. Monckton has; Gore hasn't.

Finally, as to your attempt to wrestle title to King of Quacks...

...as I well know...that is not the case. You are exceptionally capable of applying logic to political agenda, yet in so many cases, you adopt an ethos of blind trust and faith in the "attempts" of leftist social engineers to change the natural course/timeline of humanity.

Take off your blinders, and start viewing these agendas from an objective angle...and you may begin to understand why I am so passionate about "outing" the Alarmist liars.

Amazing that your opponents resort to name calling and hysteria instead of trying to pick apart your analysis.

[houndawg]

The way I see it there are two basic areas that should be studied:

1. Measurable effects - what can we actually observe (i.e. temperature change, polar ice cap change, sea level change), and what are we likely to observe in the future.

2. Man's role - are we having an effect and what can we do about it.

They should be evaluated separately with emphasis on the measurable effects so that we can make reasonable preparations (i.e. if we expect sea levels to rise a foot in the next 50 years we can modify the way we design coastal communities accordingly).

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer the question of Man's role in global warming to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know enough about our climate and it's become too much of a political issue.

The bottom line is that we need to learn what we can while at the same time not being alarmist about it.

Scientific method! Great!

The math can get a little intimidating when studying the climate. Two of the three biggest supercomputer clusters of which I am aware are devoted to crunching the atmospheric and oceanographic numbers, and we can barely predict next week, let alone next year or the next century.

But you never know how much better we can get if we try!

Wow, thanks for sharing that.

[houndawg]

Just like Bush will never be held accountable for his wildly exagerated Claims about Iraq...

Not the extent you want him to be. Bush has been run through the mud so many times by the media that he will no longer be respected for anything.


Gore will never be spoken of in a bad way....ever. His lies will never be known by the mass public.

I wish people would stop being so negative about Bush's miserable failure as a President and try to focus just once on his positive accomplisment. Political cartoonists know damn well that they would be eating at soup kitchens if it weren't for him.