That's a well crafted, professionally articulated counterpoint.dbackjon wrote:YAWN.....Col Hogan wrote: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...
Now drop and give me 17
T-man,travelinman67 wrote: 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.
I find them both pretty silly 
Amazing...Cleets Part 2 wrote: T-man,
Have you read anything I've written about Gore..?
Gore & Monckton are the same man in different hats...
Blind trust... Me...?
Regarding Climate change... again - as I've said 100 times - as long as both side are profiting from their deceit the truth will be manipulated to create the desired effect
It's mostly a non-issue for me... but snuggling up to Monckton as you do is no different than snuggling up to Gore (and for some reason you can't see that)
Objective... you're the least objective person on this forum... but thanks for the concern
) When are you going to go back and read my posts before you lash-out like a frothing mouthed rabid dog..?travelinman67 wrote:Amazing...Cleets Part 2 wrote: T-man,
Have you read anything I've written about Gore..?
Gore & Monckton are the same man in different hats...
Blind trust... Me...?
Regarding Climate change... again - as I've said 100 times - as long as both side are profiting from their deceit the truth will be manipulated to create the desired effect
It's mostly a non-issue for me... but snuggling up to Monckton as you do is no different than snuggling up to Gore (and for some reason you can't see that)
Objective... you're the least objective person on this forum... but thanks for the concern
You again dodge the issue in question.
Why was a person of Gore's dubious character allowed to testify, yet Lord Monckton, who had just testified before the SAME committee a few week earlier, and had returned at the request of one of the committee members to respond to post-appearance, bipartisan questions posed to him, cancelled once Waxman and Gore learned he would be testifying on the same day?
And why, now, are knee jerk liberals like yourself defending the indefensible by attempting to attack Lord Monckton's character? (...speaking of dubious motives...
If his painfully well-documented assertions are so "out there", then
I challenge you to disprove the scientific evidence in his documentation (link provided in previous post)?
This is simple. You allege he is a quack because he has made some dubious statements in the past, and profits from his politics. He's provided the backup to his assertion. If his assertion is incorrect, prove it.
I agree with Monckton on this (for the 3rd time) Yet, then, after acknowledging you agree with his assertions as they pertain to the Global Warming scam, you focus your attention on attacking HIS credibility (and mine), rather than Gores?Cleets Part 2 wrote:When are you going to go back and read my posts before you lash-out like a frothing mouthed rabid dog..?travelinman67 wrote: Amazing...
You again dodge the issue in question.
Why was a person of Gore's dubious character allowed to testify, yet Lord Monckton, who had just testified before the SAME committee a few week earlier, and had returned at the request of one of the committee members to respond to post-appearance, bipartisan questions posed to him, cancelled once Waxman and Gore learned he would be testifying on the same day?
And why, now, are knee jerk liberals like yourself defending the indefensible by attempting to attack Lord Monckton's character? (...speaking of dubious motives...
If his painfully well-documented assertions are so "out there", then
I challenge you to disprove the scientific evidence in his documentation (link provided in previous post)?
This is simple. You allege he is a quack because he has made some dubious statements in the past, and profits from his politics. He's provided the backup to his assertion. If his assertion is incorrect, prove it.
I've said twice now: I do not disagree with Monckton regarding climate change..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My agreeing with him on one topic as I have also (I'm sure) agreed with Gore on a topic once in the past does not make Gore or Monckton "not a nut-ball"
YES... you blind deaf broken record
Yes... He's still a total fruit-loop nut-ball on the pay-roll and no more credible a character than GORE..!!!
Jeezus... you're going senile you old bat
travelinman67 wrote:Yet, then, after acknowledging you agree with his assertions as they pertain to the Global Warming scam, you focus your attention on attacking HIS credibility (and mine), rather than Gores?Cleets Part 2 wrote:
When are you going to go back and read my posts before you lash-out like a frothing mouthed rabid dog..?
I've said twice now: I do not disagree with Monckton regarding climate change..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My agreeing with him on one topic as I have also (I'm sure) agreed with Gore on a topic once in the past does not make Gore or Monckton "not a nut-ball"
YES... you blind deaf broken record
Yes... He's still a total fruit-loop nut-ball on the pay-roll and no more credible a character than GORE..!!!
Jeezus... you're going senile you old bat
...must be one of those, "Can't teach and old dog new tricks" exemplars...
I blame that on modern medicine. I'm not kidding. Every time population has gotten to big for the world to live sustainably and comfortably there has been some massive epidemic to take care of it. However, modern medicine has made it almost impossible for that kind of thing to happen.Cleets Part 2 wrote: or the fact that we'll have 15 billion humans on earth in 75 years
When did exposing the lies of a demagogue attempting to derail the world's economy become "hate"?Cleets Part 2 wrote:...Face it: You simply cannot admit that their is FRAUD on both side of the climate debatetravelinman67 wrote: Yet, then, after acknowledging you agree with his assertions as they pertain to the Global Warming scam, you focus your attention on attacking HIS credibility (and mine), rather than Gores?
...must be one of those, "Can't teach and old dog new tricks" exemplars...
you're too emotionally invested in your hatred for Gore and your fear that only some validity exists on both sides
Gore Invests $35 Million for Hedge Funds With EBay BillionaireWhen Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn confronted Al Gore with his profiteering from global warming legislation at today’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, Al Gore said that every penny he ever made from his business activities went into non-profit efforts. [See transcript below.]
That is a flat-out lie, according to this March 6, 2008 Bloomberg report that indicates that Al Gore invested $35 million of his own money in various for-profit endeavors...
Here’s the transcript from the April 24, 2009 exchange between Al Gore and Rep. Blackburn. Note that not only does Al Gore lie to Rep. Blackburn, he tries to turn the tables by implicitly accusing her of being anti-business.
Rep. Blackburn: …You talked a little about [that] people have to have trust in what you’re doing and I think you know that this bill is going to fundamentally change the way America works and it’s going to effect families. We’ve all talked about how it affects individuals and what it’s going to do to their budgets and… ah… what it’s going to do to jobs in this country. And given the magnitude of those changes, I think it’s really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates of climate change legislation. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives and to set the record straight about your motives for some of your former constituents. And I’ve got an article from [the] October 8 [2008] New York Times Magazine about a firm called Kleiner Perkins… a capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?
Al Gore: Well, yes. I’m a partner at Kleiner Perkins.
Rep. Blackburn: So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?
Al Gore: [Sigh]… I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And, Congresswoman, if you’re… if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.
Rep. Blackburn: No, sir, I’m not making accusations. I’m asking questions that have been asked of me. And individuals… constituents… that were seeking a point of clarity. So I am asking…
Al Gore: I understand exactly what you’re doing Congresswoman. Everybody here does.
Rep. Blackburn: Well, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit. Does all of it go to a not-for-profit. Is it an education not-for-profit?
Al Gore: Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, the book… uh… from any investments from renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?
Rep. Blackburn: I am simply asking for clarification on the relationship.
Al Gore: I’m proud of it. I’m proud of it.
In my world, Cleets, holding demagogues accountable for their lies is a just and moral, if not noble endeavor, not "hate".March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.
Tman is a victim.Cleets Part 2 wrote:T-man...
You hold him accountable and hate him at the same time
and it does not take more than a casual glance at your body of work to see that you HATE him...
Psych evaluation:
You know that when you hate (to a large degree) you allow that person to control you
10,000 word wild-eyed crazy foaming mad dog response
4... 3... 2...
Cleets, when you go to bed tonight, beg Jimmy Swaggart's boss to make you as pure in thought and motive as TMan ..it's your only hope.......hippie....travelinman67 wrote:In my world, Cleets, holding demagogues accountable for their lies is a just and moral, if not noble endeavor, not "hate".
(personal attack in 4-3-2...)
Appaholic wrote:Cleets, when you go to bed tonight, beg Jimmy Swaggart's boss to make you as pure in thought and motive as TMan ..it's your only hope.......hippie....travelinman67 wrote:In my world, Cleets, holding demagogues accountable for their lies is a just and moral, if not noble endeavor, not "hate".
(personal attack in 4-3-2...)
There. Feel better now?Cleets Part 2 wrote:Appaholic wrote:
Cleets, when you go to bed tonight, beg Jimmy Swaggart's boss to make you as pure in thought and motive as TMan ..it's your only hope.......hippie....
Yes,
The noble T-man is what we should all strive to be
(Thanks for the guidance brother Appaholic)
I do... and I feel safer as long as you:travelinman67 wrote:There. Feel better now?Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Yes,
The noble T-man is what we should all strive to be
(Thanks for the guidance brother Appaholic)
Thankless jobs: It's my duty.Cleets Part 2 wrote:I do... and I feel safer as long as you:travelinman67 wrote:
There. Feel better now?
Keep doing your NOBLE work...
