Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[cyb]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

That video makes one hel_l of a lot of sense.

Shame some posters on here will not be able to see the wood for the trees.

[LawnGnome]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

Please share this video with skeptics and believers alike. The time for debate is over. We are living in the time of consequences.

[JR Texas]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

Please share this video with skeptics and believers alike. The time for debate is over. We are living in the time of consequences.

Great video! It is about risk management..........and doing nothing is infinitely more risky than taking positive action now.

[cyb]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

Please share this video with skeptics and believers alike. The time for debate is over. We are living in the time of consequences.

Great video! It is about risk management..........and doing nothing is infinitely more risky than taking positive action now.

Better than bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I do not pretend to understand everything about global warming, But one thing i do know is that i have the intelligence to know fiction and fact.

JR and others keep it up maybe one day the uneducated will see the light.

Teetree take off either the rose coloured glasses or the dark ones.

[wilsongbrown]

If you don't believe that the largest western democracy (sic) who launched a massive campaign to persuade millions of people to invade oil producing countries, at least twice, would not resort to outright misinformation on the facts of climate change, you're incredibly naive.

[cyb]

If you don't believe that the largest western democracy (sic) who launched a massive campaign to persuade millions of people to invade oil producing countries, at least twice, would not resort to outright misinformation on the facts of climate change, you're incredibly naive.

Provide the proof of your post.

[JR Texas]

If you don't believe that the largest western democracy (sic) who launched a massive campaign to persuade millions of people to invade oil producing countries, at least twice, would not resort to outright misinformation on the facts of climate change, you're incredibly naive.

Google "oil and gas reserves" and see an image of where they are located and ask yourself why the USA and its allies, one of the biggest users of BIG OIL, would invade a country that is not stable and that has massive reserves underneath the ground.

Fortunately, we have a new president who appears to understand that it is time to move forward into the 21st century with a new energy platform in place--one that is environmentally sound and locally available.

Now we are dependent on BIG OIL--a complex global entity, the parts of which do not always cooperate with each other--in places that are not stable.

BIG OIL wants the game to continue forever. Why? Because they are making a fortune. It is that simple.

A new energy system for the 21st century--if properly designed--will emancipate people from economic servitude, reverse climate change, reduce population growth, reduce crime and social chaos, and greatly improve the quality of life worldwide (leading to a better and much more peaceful state of existence).

It is far more risky to do nothing than to act now.

Even if the risk of doing nothing has been overblown as some conspiracy skeptics believe, changing our outdated and destructive energy system will cause massive benefits worldwide.

We have nothing to gain by doing nothing and continuing to embrace an energy system that should have died a long time ago.

We may end up losing it all if we continue to do nothing.

It is 2009.........and we are using what amounts to "Stone Age energy technology." Think about that.

It is time to move forward on the energy front.

[Spee]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

You know what? You're absolutely right. I cannot dispute that birds of a feather, flock together. In this case, I guess we're talking about loons.

[Spee]

I suppose solar, wind, geothermal don't exist.

Well of course they exist. That's the first fact that I've seen in your argument.

But let's ask the next question. What is a solar cell? It is a semiconductor. Where are semi-conductors produced? In very large factories that use all kinds of nasty chemicals and get their electricity from oil-fired power plants. Where to solar cells store their energy? In batteries. Where are those batteries produced?

On yeah ... one more thing. Somebody has to build those factories. When is the last time you saw a wind-powered earth-mover? When is the last time you saw a geothermal-powered cement mixer? When is the last time you saw a solar-powered arc-welder?

I have no issue with geo-thermal power. There are many cases where it can be shown to be cost-effective. Some of my relatives actually use it in their homes. But they do so because it offers a return on investment over a certain period of time, not because some government entity is forcing them to use it.

On the contrary, solar and wind power initiatives cannot survive without government subsidies, which is of course an abuse of government power to steal money from one individual and give it to another individual. Why do these energy sources need subsidies? Because they cost more money to produce and implement than they bring in return.

Despite efforts by Obama and others to change the rules, the world revolves around capitalism. Don't you think if companies were able to produce and implement solar and wind technology at a profit, they would be doing so? Of course they would. But this isn't possible as basic arithmetic has shown time after time.

Instead, you get inbreeding and corruption between government and industry. In the area of wind technology, the case in point is General Electric. GE is developing wind technology on a massive scale. Why? Because they are getting massive amounts of government kickbacks in the form of energy subsidies.

You anti-oil loony-tuners talk about alleged greed and corruption from "big oil." But you conveniently turn a blind eye to all of the greed and corruption associated with solar and wind technology. That's just more hypocrisy and another reason why the greenies' arguments always fold like a cheap suit.

And as the other guy said, what does all this have to do with the possibility of the Gulf of Thailand waters rising? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because they aren't related. There is no correlation. There is no causality.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Spee

[JR Texas]

If I understand you, you are saying:

1) All of the scientists on the planet who actually know something about climate change--and publish in peer review publications and work for organizations like NSF--are wrong and you are right?

2) All of the scientific evidence for human induced climate change is bogus....all made up by greedy scientists and prominent scientific organizations that want funding from the government.

3) The global economy is fine and secure with BIG OIL fueling it.

4) BIG OIL does not receive any tax breaks or govt. assistance.

5) The life systems of the planet are in no danger from our addiction to BIG OIL and are not changing rapidly primarily because of our addiction to BIG OIL.

6) The arguments against the relationship between BIG OIL and climate change are not in any way influenced or funded by BIG OIL.

7) The risk of taking action on energy far exceeds the risk of taking no action.

8) Climate change has nothing to do with whether or not the Gulf of Thailand will rise in the future.

Wow..........I totally disagree with all of the above if that is where you are coming from.

Again, I am amazed at how easy it is to manipulate the flow of information in a way that convinces people to exploit themselves so that the ruling elites of the world can increase their net worth at the expense of present/future generations and the life systems of the planet.

It is a bit scary.......especially given that only a handful of MNCs now control the global mass media (most, no doubt, are heavily invested in BIG OIL).

But at least some truth can leak out via the internet and respected peer review scientific journals.

The scientific debate is actually over........your side lost......what is happening now is a massive attempt by BIG OIL to convince politicians to do nothing.

We are using Stone Age technology. It is way past time to move forward on energy.

I remember computers as large as a small house...........now they fit in a small bag and are far more powerful.

I remember Kennedy saying we were going to go to the moon when we had no idea how to do it........but we did it.

I read about the Manhattan Project.........we did not know how to create an atomic bomb.........but we did it.

It is the same for 21st century energy........it is time to stop thinking like we have always done........it is time to move beyond the present and embrace the future.....it is time to develop a new system of energy........it should be a globally funded project.

And while we do that, we make the transition to that form of energy using existing, alternative sources of energy and efficient technologies, etc. In the process, we create jobs........people with good jobs pay taxes, thus offsetting the initial cosst of the energy development project.

Once in place, wars, ethic violence, crime, famines will all diminish.....saving tax dollars!

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking action on energy now.

[LawnGnome]

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

You know what? You're absolutely right. I cannot dispute that birds of a feather, flock together. In this case, I guess we're talking about loons.

LOL. Watch the video and decide for yourself. Mr. Spee has already decided, poorly, but he's old and will be dead soon enough, so there is still hope for the rest of us.

[PhilHarries]

Read this piece : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/Th...atastrophe.html

I've cut and pasted a few pieces including the heading.

The real climate change catastrophe

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.

In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it. This was why the computer models it relied on as its chief source of evidence were all programmed to show that, as CO₂ levels continued to rise, so temperatures must inevitably follow.

But however persuasive the case seemed to be, there were just beginning to be rather serious doubts about the methods being used to promote it. More and more questions were being asked about the IPCC’s unbalanced approach to evidence – most notably in its promotion of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, produced in time for its 2001 report by a hitherto obscure US scientist Dr Michael Mann, purporting to show how global temperatures had suddenly been shooting up to levels quite unprecedented in history.

One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

We have “less than 50 days” to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks’ time. But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.

In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?

A long time I'd say. Take the words BIG OIL out of JR Texas' arguement and you have little left rather like the fading grin of the Cheshire cat.

[thaihome]

...Thaihome.........before posting look up what a multinational corporation is and what oil and gas reserves are. That might help you respond. You might also check your "ethnic hatred" at the door.

...

You might want to check your irony detector, seems to be malfunctioning. Probably is being interfered with by the aluminum foil hat you wear.

TH

[JR Texas]

Reality check: BIG OIL is real. It is almost impossible to discuss this topic without talking about BIG OIL.

About Booker, a radical conservative who is not a scientist:

Christopher Booker has been a writer and editor for magazines such as Private Eye and has a long-rung column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph.

Booker wrote an article, titled "“The world has never seen such freezing heat,” published in the UK’s Telegraph, which purports to be a "shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees." Yet, according to EcoWorldly, the article falls considerably short of its goal, especially in terms of its scientific integrity.[1] Booker was also a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics organized by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. His presentation was entitled, "Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing."[2]

source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...istopher_Booker

[Rumfoord]

Is there objective scientific data regarding sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand?

If so, where can it be accessed, and how far back does the data go?

I don't know how such data is gathered, but I can envision a series of stoutly anchored (in many tons of concrete) metal poles at the seashore. Periodic precise measurements would be taken, ideally when the waters are relatively calm. If there's a concern about subsiding land masses, then perhaps GPS positioning would help that, though I believe GPS only works highly detailed for the US gov't (which paid for and provided it). For worldwide royalty/fee-free use, its accuracy is intentionally not as precise.

Is the appropriate Thai gov't Ministry taking precise/accurate measurements, or is the OP's statement just some gut feeling he had after eating MSG-laden rice soup one morning after his wife found his mia noi's tel number in his mobile? I'd guess that any scientific measurements are probably administered by an outside/farang outfit. Thais too readily rely on outside experts to do such things.

Good questions...........but did you see the undeniable association between the number if pirates on the planet and temperature over time?

I remember another one many years ago showing an supposed association between the number of churches and the number of bars in a city........implication: bars lead to churches.........or churches lead to bars, however you want to look at it.

At some point you incorporate logic, reason, and common sense...............

Surely some responsible scientist in Thailand is monitoring this........this post, though, started because of something written by a Thai scientist.

good question?

scrutinising things based on the argument you cannot trust these data because they come 'only' from a thai scientist wo had probably eaten to much MSG in his soup? that is total lunatic and don't give your other positions and opinions much credit.

btw. if you would do your own little research, read something and gain some knowledge you will find out how the sea level can be measured and how it is measured on a global scale. learn how objective scientific data are collected. you will eventually find out that sea level changes, rise or fall on different scales around the globe.

[JR Texas]

Is there objective scientific data regarding sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand?

If so, where can it be accessed, and how far back does the data go?

I don't know how such data is gathered, but I can envision a series of stoutly anchored (in many tons of concrete) metal poles at the seashore. Periodic precise measurements would be taken, ideally when the waters are relatively calm. If there's a concern about subsiding land masses, then perhaps GPS positioning would help that, though I believe GPS only works highly detailed for the US gov't (which paid for and provided it). For worldwide royalty/fee-free use, its accuracy is intentionally not as precise.

Is the appropriate Thai gov't Ministry taking precise/accurate measurements, or is the OP's statement just some gut feeling he had after eating MSG-laden rice soup one morning after his wife found his mia noi's tel number in his mobile? I'd guess that any scientific measurements are probably administered by an outside/farang outfit. Thais too readily rely on outside experts to do such things.

Good questions...........but did you see the undeniable association between the number if pirates on the planet and temperature over time?

I remember another one many years ago showing an supposed association between the number of churches and the number of bars in a city........implication: bars lead to churches.........or churches lead to bars, however you want to look at it.

At some point you incorporate logic, reason, and common sense...............

Surely some responsible scientist in Thailand is monitoring this........this post, though, started because of something written by a Thai scientist.

good question?

scrutinising things based on the argument you cannot trust these data because they come 'only' from a thai scientist wo had probably eaten to much MSG in his soup? that is total lunatic and don't give your other positions and opinions much credit.

btw. if you would do your own little research, read something and gain some knowledge you will find out how the sea level can be measured and how it is measured on a global scale. learn how objective scientific data are collected. you will eventually find out that sea level changes, rise or fall on different scales around the globe.

Are you asking a question? You seem to be contradicting yourself........the Thai scientist whose position has been misquoted does apparently understand oceanography a bit. Sea level changes are not uniform due to a myriad of factors (e.g., the moon's gravitational force and rotation, rotation of the earth, Coriolis effect, something called gyres--which I am trying to understand--etc). I think the original OP has posted a Straw Man.....if both poles melt then any variation will be overwhelmed by the excess water.........causing a rise. How much? Who knows for sure. I don't. I am more concerned about how climate change will impact rice production in Southeast Asia. The Thai scientist never said the Gulf would not rise under any circumstance........he never said climate change will not impact the sea level of the Gulf of Thailand. This is a straw man. The subject has been hijacked by those who want to debate whether or not climate change is real and human induced. The entire thread should be put to bed.

[LawnGnome]

Watch this video - end the debate, and move on.

[Rumfoord]

Watch this video - end the debate, and move on.

wrong video.

if there would be ever an youtube clip that could bring some clarification to the debate and is in relation to this topic . than is it the one below.

you have to watch that and than watch it again.

[nisakiman]

Watch this video - end the debate, and move on.

You are joking, aren't you..............

Was that supposed to be for grown-ups? Or just for those who read the down-market tabloids and believe everything written therein?

I really can't remember the last time I watched such utter tripe.

Give me a day or so, and I'll find some proper, researched science for you to peruse, rather than a bunch of trite drivel that's truly an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Edit: Yes, I can remember when I watched similarly laughable tripe. It was a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" starring a very wealthy, and becoming ever-wealthier-on-the-back-of-the-AGW-industry Al Gore.

Edited October 26, 2009 by nisakiman

[JR Texas]

Watch this video - end the debate, and move on.

You are joking, aren't you..............

Was that supposed to be for grown-ups? Or just for those who read the down-market tabloids and believe everything written therein?

I really can't remember the last time I watched such utter tripe.

Give me a day or so, and I'll find some proper, researched science for you to peruse, rather than a bunch of trite drivel that's truly an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Edit: Yes, I can remember when I watched similarly laughable tripe. It was a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" starring a very wealthy, and becoming ever-wealthier-on-the-back-of-the-AGW-industry Al Gore.

The clip is for people who have some common sense about how real science works. The clip was actually very good.........the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" was stellar.

To lend support to the position you embrace--a position that has already been discounted by the majority of responsible scientists worldwide--your side just posted a clip from a "chipmunk?"

So, the chipmunk/scientist knows more about the issue than the world's best climate scientists?

I think it is time you admitted defeat.

We are using "Stone Age technology" that is damaging the life systems of the planet and causing economic pain worldwide.

It is time to evolve and take action on the energy front.

It is far more risky to do nothing than to take action.

The benefits of taking action are enormous.

[Rumfoord]

The clip is for people who have some common sense about how real science works. The clip was actually very good.........the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" was stellar.

To lend support to the position you embrace--a position that has already been discounted by the majority of responsible scientists worldwide--your side just posted a clip from a "chipmunk?"

So, the chipmunk/scientist knows more about the issue than the world's best climate scientists?

the pseudo-witty clip convince only people who already believe. it is rather a waste of time to watch it and it insults my intelligence.

the 'chipmunk' is cute and innocent.

the message, the argument comes with the meta level and the context, to recognise it depends on your capacity for abstract thought. and the 'chipmunk' clip was just a reply, a response, a comment to that 'dramatic' other video.

the graph about number of pirates vs. global temperature was also not a 'scientific argument' on the first level, but a ironic comment and response to some others graph and statistics and their interpretations. you tried to take that at face value and respond with a smiley. in the same breath you mentioned a "supposed association between the number of churches and the number of bars in a city". could it be that the fragments churches 'n' bars in your memory refer to theBootlegger and Baptist Theory?

from the same academic economists comes also a essay with the titel "Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming" http://www.perc.org/articles/article193.php

that should be a appreciated read for you.

still unclear is what you want to explain and demonstrate with the chart below you posted in entry #673 after being ask what your 'BIG OIL and THEY' actually means.

it is about the control of the global oil reserves. the top 5 are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, and UAE. close to a monopolistic market control.

but wouldn't a chart with the world biggest consumer of oil make much more sense, wouldn't the level of consumption responsible for an enviromental impact?

are these top 5 responsible for a consumer craziness?

questionable i would also call the graph that juxtaposed global population, Co₂ concentration and temperature. just because around the globe, individual person, different societies and countries are not equally responsible, have a different carbon footprint. the mere total amount of people isn't 1:1 responsible for the rise of Co₂ in the same hockey stick shape as these graphs suggests. that is an nonscientific simplification. and it is pretty close to the tune in that clip with the cute chipmunk. dramatic, stagy, but not science.

[JR Texas]

The clip is for people who have some common sense about how real science works. The clip was actually very good.........the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" was stellar.

To lend support to the position you embrace--a position that has already been discounted by the majority of responsible scientists worldwide--your side just posted a clip from a "chipmunk?"

So, the chipmunk/scientist knows more about the issue than the world's best climate scientists?

the pseudo-witty clip convince only people who already believe. it is rather a waste of time to watch it and it insults my intelligence.

the 'chipmunk' is cute and innocent.

the message, the argument comes with the meta level and the context, to recognise it depends on your capacity for abstract thought. and the 'chipmunk' clip was just a reply, a response, a comment to that 'dramatic' other video.

the graph about number of pirates vs. global temperature was also not a 'scientific argument' on the first level, but a ironic comment and response to some others graph and statistics and their interpretations. you tried to take that at face value and respond with a smiley. in the same breath you mentioned a "supposed association between the number of churches and the number of bars in a city". could it be that the fragments churches 'n' bars in your memory refer to theBootlegger and Baptist Theory?

from the same academic economists comes also a essay with the titel "Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming" http://www.perc.org/articles/article193.php

that should be a appreciated read for you.

still unclear is what you want to explain and demonstrate with the chart below you posted in entry #673 after being ask what your 'BIG OIL and THEY' actually means.

it is about the control of the global oil reserves. the top 5 are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, and UAE. close to a monopolistic market control.

but wouldn't a chart with the world biggest consumer of oil make much more sense, wouldn't the level of consumption responsible for an enviromental impact?

are these top 5 responsible for a consumer craziness?

questionable i would also call the graph that juxtaposed global population, Co₂ concentration and temperature. just because around the globe, individual person, different societies and countries are not equally responsible, have a different carbon footprint. the mere total amount of people isn't 1:1 responsible for the rise of Co₂ in the same hockey stick shape as these graphs suggests. that is an nonscientific simplification. and it is pretty close to the tune in that clip with the cute chipmunk. dramatic, stagy, but not science.

As I said, BIG OIL is a complex global entity........that means many things: control over reserves, pipeline construction, refineries, drilling, shipping, gas stations, automobile industry, politicians, lobby groups, lawyers, banks, etc.

It is a production-consumption system that makes BIG MONEY for BIG OIL.

Now, enough already........the risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of taking action on energy now.

We are using Stone Age technology now. It is a destructive technology. It is time to move beyond BIG OIL.

BIG OIL is using the mainstream mass media to teach people what they need to know to exploit themselves.

They want control over whatever energy system we use and or develop in the future.

They want to maintain the status quo.

Believe what you want.

[nisakiman]

Watch this video - end the debate, and move on.

You are joking, aren't you..............

Was that supposed to be for grown-ups? Or just for those who read the down-market tabloids and believe everything written therein?

I really can't remember the last time I watched such utter tripe.

Give me a day or so, and I'll find some proper, researched science for you to peruse, rather than a bunch of trite drivel that's truly an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Edit: Yes, I can remember when I watched similarly laughable tripe. It was a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" starring a very wealthy, and becoming ever-wealthier-on-the-back-of-the-AGW-industry Al Gore.

The clip is for people who have some common sense about how real science works. The clip was actually very good.........the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" was stellar.

To lend support to the position you embrace--a position that has already been discounted by the majority of responsible scientists worldwide--your side just posted a clip from a "chipmunk?"

So, the chipmunk/scientist knows more about the issue than the world's best climate scientists?

I think it is time you admitted defeat.

We are using "Stone Age technology" that is damaging the life systems of the planet and causing economic pain worldwide.

It is time to evolve and take action on the energy front.

It is far more risky to do nothing than to take action.

The benefits of taking action are enormous.

If you think that the movie "An inconvenient truth" was stellar, then you obviously have a taste for the fantasy genre. Did you like the latest "Batman" movie, too?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

The benefits of taking action are enormous.

I think what you mean is the costs of taking action are enormous.

[JR Texas]

You just posted a lot of nonsense......most of which is influenced by the so-called "Science and Public Policy Institute," a pseudo-scientific orgnanization whose ideas are heavily influenced by Christopher Monckton (see below):

Christopher Monckton is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. [1] He is also a climate skeptic and has written articles for the Science and Public Policy Institute, The Guardian, and the American Physical Society claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. His critics, including The Guardian writer George Monbiot, point out that Monckton has only a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications." [2]

Christopher Monckton has written many articles critical of current climate change science. In one article written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, Monckton criticized Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," alleging that the film used very few facts, most of which were "substantially inaccurate." [1] Monckton's critique came on the heels of a British lawsuit in which a school official sued the British government for distributing the film in public schools. [3] Monckton, in fact, admitted in an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, that he played a role in the court hearings by prompting a friend to fund the court case in order to "fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense" that is global warming. [4] Lord Monckton is also funding the distribution in British schools of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," as part of a "counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." [5] This film is currently being investigated for claims from two of the scientists who took part "that the editing gave a misleading impression of critical data and their own viewpoints." [5]

Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society refuting the IPCC's conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[6]

all from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...topher_Monckton

The real scientific debate is over..........your side lost.....the vast majority of responsible scientists and nations are focusing on solutions.

It is currently costing us a fortune to worship at the alter of BIG OIL. If we do nothing, if we continue to embrace Stone Age technology, it will cost us and future generations far more than a fortune.

Acting on energy now (a globally funded action) will, in fact, be the least costly option and could end up lowering the cost of everything produced/consumed on the planet and make "working for a living" less necessary.

It might end up reducing the work week to 20 hours per week instead of 40 and increase the quality of life at the same time..........so we will end up with less expensive goods and services and more leisure time...........and a cleaner environment.

The world will become much safer as well........social stability will increase.

Do nothing..........and we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.............

[Spee]

You just posted a lot of nonsense

Pot, kettle, black.

Do nothing..........and we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.............

You know you're absolutely right. If we do nothing, the lying and propagandizing prophets of the global warming religious cult will make every effort to tax everyone into the poor house and drive everyone back to the stone age.

I don't know if you were even born at the time, but back in the mid-1970's the mantra of the enviro-wacko cult was global cooling. It was all over the headlines. Obviously it didn't take.

So they tried again in the late 1980's, only the mantra had changed from global cooling to global warming. Go figure. Leading the charge of course was high prophet, hypocrite, financial exploiter .... none other than Captain Planet himself ..... Algore.

Algore's Minister of Propaganda was none other than former US Sentator Timothy Wirth. You can do your own research and viewing of the PBS Frontline TV coverage, if you want to. I will leave you with some statements from that piece of shit Wirth, who provides a clear example of how the entire premise has been based upon staged imagery and intentional misleading from the original Congressional hearings in the late 1980's right up to the present day.

These are excerpts from the Frontline interview:

Timothy Wirth: "We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it."

Deborah Amos (PBS Frontline): "Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?"

Timothy Wirth: "What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air-conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot."

Wirth (from the hearing): "Dr. Hansen, if you'd start us off, we'd appreciate it." ........

Wirth (back to the interview): "(James) Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table ....."

So in the 1970's there was nothing but plain old cold tired bullshit. In the 1980's the mantra changed from to fresh warm bullshit.

In an effort to try to manipulate public impressions, the propagandists purposely worked to create a fraudulent appearance. Gee what a surprise. Fifteen years later, creton-in-chief Algore did the same thing in his fictional movie, with the polar bears, the hockey stick and a multitude of other crapola.

It's amazing that with all your "BIG OIL" paranoia, you would at the same time put your complete trust in a bunch of fraudsters who want to do little more than use the force of government to rob citizens and redistribute the money elsewhere, lining their pockets the whole way.

A world without oil would be the same as a world without money. It can't happen. It won't happen. The only issue in question is how much citizens are going to allow their governments to <deleted> them up the backside for using one of Mother Earth's most commonly used and least expensive natural resources (the air we breathe obviously being the other one).

It disgusts me to say that my own country is leading the way in perpetrating this fraud. It really started with the US Supreme Court when it ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Can you imagine that? A court of law rules that natural effluent from human life and the essential precise chemical required for all of the world's flora is a pollutant. The whole premise is absolutely stupid and indicative of a world biting its nose to spite its face.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Spee

[JR Texas]

You just posted a lot of nonsense

Pot, kettle, black.

Do nothing..........and we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.............

You know you're absolutely right. If we do nothing, the lying and propagandizing prophets of the global warming religious cult will make every effort to tax everyone into the poor house and drive everyone back to the stone age.

I don't know if you were even born at the time, but back in the mid-1970's the mantra of the enviro-wacko cult was global cooling. It was all over the headlines. Obviously it didn't take.

So they tried again in the late 1980's, only the mantra had changed from global cooling to global warming. Go figure. Leading the charge of course was high prophet, hypocrite, financial exploiter .... none other than Captain Planet himself ..... Algore.

Algore's Minister of Propaganda was none other than former US Sentator Timothy Wirth. You can do your own research and viewing of the PBS Frontline TV coverage, if you want to. I will leave you with some statements from that piece of shit Wirth, who provides a clear example of how the entire premise has been based upon staged imagery and intentional misleading from the original Congressional hearings in the late 1980's right up to the present day.

These are excerpts from the Frontline interview:

Timothy Wirth: "We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it."

Deborah Amos (PBS Frontline): "Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?"

Timothy Wirth: "What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air-conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot."

Wirth (from the hearing): "Dr. Hansen, if you'd start us off, we'd appreciate it." ........

Wirth (back to the interview): "(James) Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table ....."

So in the 1970's there was nothing but plain old cold tired bullshit. In the 1980's the mantra changed from to fresh warm bullshit.

In an effort to try to manipulate public impressions, the propagandists purposely worked to create a fraudulent appearance. Gee what a surprise. Fifteen years later, creton-in-chief Algore did the same thing in his fictional movie, with the polar bears, the hockey stick and a multitude of other crapola.

It's amazing that with all your "BIG OIL" paranoia, you would at the same time put your complete trust in a bunch of fraudsters who want to do little more than use the force of government to rob citizens and redistribute the money elsewhere, lining their pockets the whole way.

A world without oil would be the same as a world without money. It can't happen. It won't happen. The only issue in question is how much citizens are going to allow their governments to <deleted> them up the backside for using one of Mother Earth's most commonly used and least expensive natural resources (the air we breathe obviously being the other one).

It disgusts me to say that my own country is leading the way in perpetrating this fraud. It really started with the US Supreme Court when it ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Can you imagine that? A court of law rules that natural effluent from human life and the essential precise chemical required for all of the world's flora is a pollutant. The whole premise is absolutely stupid and indicative of a world biting its nose to spite its face.

Is there another person out there that wants to take out the trash?

[nisakiman]

You just posted a lot of nonsense.....

So let's see, the so called "Science and Public Policy Institute" is not to be countenanced since it is a "pseudo-scientific" organisation, while the so called "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", which is a psuedo-scientific political organisation is obviously preaching God's own word. Yes? Have I got that right?

And Sir Christopher Monkton, who is only a journalist (and classissist) is not to be taken seriously. (Excuse me, but I thought is was the job of journalists to try to enlighten the general public as to current affairs...). Whereas Guardian writer (journalist) George Monbiot (he who is lampooned so regularly for his doomsday predictions) is of course the prophet, spreading the truth of the deified IPCC. Yes? Am I "on message" so far?

And of course, all the glaring errors , deceits and twisted facts in Al Gore's movie, as pointed out by Monkton, and the fact that a British judge labelled the film as political propaganda don't count.

No, of course that doesn't count in your little world, where truth and enquiry and (heaven forbid) scepticism are tantamount to heresy.

<h1 style="margin: 0pt; font-size: 12px;">"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."</h1>

Joseph Goebbels.

The real scientific debate is over

Oh dear, not that old canard. No my friend, the real scientific debate is just beginning. Despite the AGM-warriors attemts to shut down any debate, more and more scientists are daring to put their heads above the parapet (at the risk of losing any chance of government funding) and question the orthodoxy. Why do you think the likes of Al Gore refuse to take part in a public debate about the matter? The aforementioned C.Monkton. has even travelled to the USA to take part in such a debate, but our Al got cold feet and pulled out at the last minute. His PR guys probably told him that he would lose big-time.

"Do nothing..........and we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay"

You've got it the wrong way round again.........

Even a lot of scientists who support (probably because they are government funded) the theory of AGW are saying that the best and most economically sensible approach is to deal with the situation rather than try to prevent it.

I think your brain has been addled by reading too much of "The Guardian" You should try to get out a bit. See what the real world looks like. You never know, you might even like it!

[nisakiman]

Oh, and on the subject of how we should react to AGW, if it is indeed more than the product of some fevered imaginations, here's the opinion of someone who is considered an expert, even by the believers.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7521/

[JR Texas]

Oh, and on the subject of how we should react to AGW, if it is indeed more than the product of some fevered imaginations, here's the opinion of someone who is considered an expert, even by the believers.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7521/

Maybe an image might help put things in proper perspective:

[teatree]

A lot of posters seem to have no clue as to the global power structure and the real goals connected to global warming.

I urge everyone, whether they know AGW is a scam or not, to watch 'Fall Of The Republic'.

It's doesn't focus on only global warming but it does feature in a significant part of the documentary. The main AGW part is at about 1h 40min.

Tax, control, the transfer of wealth and power from the average man in the street to the big banking money masters.