US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[griz]

Sigh, the drivel just doesn't end...

Griz you're obviously not British or you would not be referencing a political advisor to the United kingdom independence party.

First of all Monckton is an hereditary lord, literally born with a silver spoon in his mouth who's comfortable life style depends on the economic status quo.

Secondly the guy is an advisor to the UKIP party - an far right extreme populist movement similar to the tea party in the united states

If anyone had an agenda beyond science its this guy

heres a link to some background behind what policies UKIP stands for..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_Kin ... ence_Party

However lets just stick to the science in your you tube video.

http://static.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/?u ... esentation

warning: Do not watch the latter link if you do not want your bubble burst.

Thanks for the videos/slides UK. But I'm not convinced. Abraham attacks Monckton for 10 slides before he even gets into the Science. If you watch the videos below you'll notice that Abraham's got it wrong on several accounts and missed out on fairly representing Monckton throughout. Abraham even has slides entitled "Who can we trust?" and "Who to believe?" ... if that doesn't feel like manipulation I can't help you.

Sorry for all these videos (I hope I don't break the site Corn) ... but it's in full below.

Monckton Refutes Abraham: Introduction :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 2: Sea Level Rise :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 3: Polar Bears :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 4: Sea Ice :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 5: What's killing polar bears?


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 6: The Medieval Warm Period :


Monckton Responds to Abraham: Part 7: Climate Sensitivity Reports :


Monckton Responds to Abraham: Part 8: Global Surface Temperatures :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 9: The Temperature Record :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 10: NCDC Graphs :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 11: The Consensus Lie :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 12: How fast is sea level rising?


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 13: Correlation?
[youtube]3t2tnuv-1uI[youtube]

Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 14: Interglacial Periods :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 15: Global Warming's Evil Twin :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 16: Extent of Sea Ice :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 17: The Greenland Ice Sheet :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 18: The Himalayan Glaciers :


Monckton Refutes Abraham Part 19: CO2 is a Trace Gas :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 20: A Few Loose Ends :


Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 21: Conclusion :

[ukcanuck]

Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 21: Conclusion :

Thanks for the early morning chuckle. I wish i had the time to go through the ridiculousness of Moncton's tactics starting with the lovely subliminal "green" background in the videos.

However, it's his conclusion that is over the top hilarious. The massive costs in regulating CO2 emitting industries!

Cost to whom one wonders?

This has been my point all along. Global treaties on climate change will be expensive but not to you and me. If the public believes the truth and responds by using less fossil fuels, if the public conscience responds by rejecting massive consumerism then less of our money will end up in Moncton's buddies pockets and more of it will be available for things that make our lives better. Things like healthcare and education and alleviating the plight of the poor worldwide.

Monckton doesn't want that. Molyneux doesn't want that. The stake holders in multinational corporations definitely don't want that and unfortunately they have enough money to muddy the waters enough to convince people that guys like donald trump for president would actually be better for the middle and lower classes.

That's actually the scary and not so funny bit. Utter rubbish like the right wing climate deniers conspiracy peddle is swallowed wholesale by too many everyday folk. enough so that a megalomaniac like trump actually gets votes.

Moreover as I'm typing this I realise that your still having trouble creationism v evolution, so I am sure this will fall on deaf ears.

[ukcanuck]

Blah blah Blah... and yet STILL not one word on the fact that almost every single presenter on the "hoax" is a card carrying member of elitist right wing organisations..


whats wrong Doc? if I'm such a "c-word" it shouldn't be that difficult to respond to this ??

[Strangelove]

Doc, it seems thou doth protest too much?

Yup, a c-word such as yourself should expect to have a few colourful words/phrases shot his way.

Whoa Doc it seems that I've got under your skin!

You do remember this is all in good fun right?

No really, you do realise this is all in good fun?

whoosh

See wot, I systematically protested my innocence in regard to alleged name-calling

... and in the end called you a c-word!

A C-WORD!!

HAHA the worst word yet!!!



Nothing?

Yeah, Strangehumour is wasted on c-words such as yourself...

(but don't feel bad, the fact you didn't get it makes it even funnier!)

You said I was falsely referring to your Irish politician friend as a PEDOPHILE (he admits it).

You are since the man has not been charged by police for an action that is surely a crime

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile

Pedophile: a person who has a sexual interest in children

Norris has been an advocate for eliminating the age of consent.

Norris defended his longtime gay lover who was busted for sodomizing a 15-yr-old boy.

(basically called it normal behavior because the Ancient Greeks did it)

He has described sexual-relationships between men and boys as positive for both...

http://www.newengelpublishing.com/david ... -i-and-ii/
https://sites.google.com/site/norrisarticle/
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2011/05/DNmagill1.jpg
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2011/05/DNmagill3.jpg

You claimed you weren’t nailed for spreading lies in the linked thread.

I wasn’t I posted links that question Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West bank

(You proclaiming them as lies does not make them so, therefore I could not have been nailed by anything but your opinion)

Nope, you were spreading wild accusations against Israel

... your only source being your Irish pedophile.

I referred you to various fact-checking sources encyclopedia/NY-Times/WashPost/etc

... all of which completely dispelled said Irish pedophile's nonsense.

You claimed that all these legit sources were lying because they are controlled by the Jews.

Hmmm that former lover was busted for buggering that boy by Israeli police (in Jerusalem)

... perhaps that's why your Irish pedophile made up rubbish about Israel!

(rubbish which I pointed out wasn't even supported by the alleged victims -> palestinians)

Yup it was you and your Irish pedophile vs... the civilized world.

THAT'S why you "dropped out" of the "debate".

Blah blah Blah... and yet STILL not one word on the fact that almost every single presenter on the "hoax" is a card carrying member of elitist right wing organisations..


whats wrong Doc? if I'm such a "c-word" it shouldn't be that difficult to respond to this ??

IF you're a c-word??

Are you conceding the fact your Irishman is a pedophile and that you were caught spreading his lies?

Watch the 12 minute + 16 minute videos as you promised....

[2Fingers]

I thought we were going to do less full quotes when replying especially when your quoting someone who is quoting someone who is quoting someone

[Strangelove]

Yah, sorry there Reef, it had to be re-quoted because UK obviously missed everything but the

BTW you're not biased against anyone/everyone who seems to deny AGW... are ya?

And you know the difference between GW and AGW... right buds?

[Strangelove]

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 83#p214183

[Puck]

Wow. Amazing stuff guys. It probably wouldn't make a good movie, but it would be a killer reality TV show. The Twitterverse would love it.

I'm going to regret this, and I'm sure the answer is buried in the bytes of the previous 25 pages, but...

Let's assume we understand the motivation of big industry to look for ways to discredit theories of AGW. What is the motivation of the proponents of AGW to reduce our alleged impact? What's the benefit? In what way is anyone's life made easier by attempting to do this? It costs more in terms of effort and money. Yet, it's labelled a hoax by the opposition. Why perpetuate a hoax at major cost and inconvenience to yourself and your way of life?

[Strangelove]

Let's assume we understand the motivation of big industry to look for ways to discredit theories of AGW. What is the motivation of the proponents of AGW to reduce our alleged impact? What's the benefit? In what way is anyone's life made easier by attempting to do this? It costs more in terms of effort and money. Yet, it's labelled a hoax by the opposition. Why perpetuate a hoax at major cost and inconvenience to yourself and your way of life?

It's a simple story of human nature.

The folks at the top of the "hoax" pyramid are making money hand-over-fist.

In this case Al Gore probably tops the list with $500M or so...

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al- ... view/bing/

So embracing a popular alarminst theory can mean big money for opportunist authors/speakers.

At some point, embracing a popular alarmist theory such as AGW helps some politicians get elected

... they in turn hand out grants to scientists to do research on AGW.

It is therefore in the best interest of these scientists to supply only data which seems to support AGW

... which breeds more lobbyists/politicians who support the AGW hypothesis.

And so on.

Like climate change, human corruption is a cycle.

So yeah, those at the top are probably mostly in it for the money.

Of course another aspect of human nature is in play, the human need for drama.

(most folks don't care much about "scientific findings" which are *not* alarmist)

Throw in yet another aspect of human nature: Human need to feel morally superior.

Now we can see how a human corruption cycle comes into full bloom.

(the many on the bottom of the pyramid are the goosestepping stooges)

The result is an entirely unscientific hysteria.

Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?

Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?

Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?

Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?

Well you get the picture...

[Cornuck]

Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?

Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?

Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?

Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?

Well you get the picture...

Don't remember the first one - but could it have been averted by better waster disposal methods and recycling?

The second one... maybe the computer models they had back in the 50's weren't as accurate?

Could Acid Rain have been slowed by laws requiring cleaner emissions?

Is the hole in the ozone getting better because we're not using CFC's as much?

What are the odds that actions by humans have changed the course of these four 'crazes'?
What are the odd that humans could also affect a global warming trend?
What are the odds that phasing out fossil fuels will be better for everyone in the long run?

Is Los Angeles' air getting better because the winds are blowing differently or because there's less man made pollution?

So a photo Al Gore's house is supposed to support your theory?
How about a link to the investment firm he runs (basing investments on sustainability, yet still beats most hedge funds on returns)?

I guess what it boils down to is it worth investing in cleaner, healthier energy sources just for the health benefits and with the possible added bonus of cooling down the planet and avoided rising sea levels? Or should we just continue burning coal and let the grandkids worry about the polluted mess we've been making for 100 year?

[Strangelove]

Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?

Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?

Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?

Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?

Well you get the picture...

Don't remember the first one - but could it have been averted by better waster disposal methods and recycling?

NOPE

The second one... maybe the computer models they had back in the 50's weren't as accurate?

Well modern computer models have utterly failed in regards to GW recently, “fool us twice…”

Could Acid Rain have been slowed by laws requiring cleaner emissions?

Acid Rain has been here since long before we were making emissions

… as evidenced by ice-core samples.

This is because Acid Rain is caused by volcanoes/lightning/wildfires.

Note human activity in the form of firefighting in effect reduces that 3rd effect

… though overall, mankind’s effect on Acid Rain is negligible, both pre/post cleaner emissions .

Globally Acid Rain is present at the same levels it ever was.

Acid Rain is a natural occurrence and is important for plant life.

So yeah the “Acid Rain!!” craze from the 70s was just that: A craze.

(note sulfur-removing filters + longer smokestacks may have somewhat reduced local AR)

Is the hole in the ozone getting better because we're not using CFC's as much?

Well poster Damon says the ozone hole is still a big problem and maybe he’s right:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... zone-layer

Mind you, at least with Nitrous Oxide we’ll all end up laughing in the face of death.

What are the odds that actions by humans have changed the course of these four 'crazes'?

Zero percent on the first 3… can’t really say on the 4th (it’s a mysterious subject).

What are the odd that humans could also affect a global warming trend?

ZERO

What are the odds that phasing out fossil fuels will be better for everyone in the long run?

ZERO, after all fossil fuels are man’s best friend:

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/A ... lFuels.php

Is Los Angeles' air getting better because the winds are blowing differently or because there's less man made pollution?

I don’t recall making a reference to any “Smog is gonna kill us!” craze.

So a photo Al Gore's house is supposed to support your theory?

How about a link to the investment firm he runs (basing investments on sustainability, yet still beats most hedge funds on returns)?

Yeah well he got 99% of that money to invest from promoting the “Global Warming!” craze.

I guess what it boils down to is it worth investing in cleaner, healthier energy sources just for the health benefits and with the possible added bonus of cooling down the planet and avoided rising sea levels? Or should we just continue burning coal and let the grandkids worry about the polluted mess we've been making for 100 year?

I don’t recall making a reference to any “Pollution!!” craze.

Keep burning coal though... because a Maunder Minimum is coming.

(our grandkids will thank us)

(also keep them away from that Irish politician)

[ukcanuck]

Are you conceding the fact your Irishman is a pedophile and that you were caught spreading his lies?

Watch the 12 minute + 16 minute videos as you promised....

Nice try


but lets finish rubbing your nose in your hypocrisy on the subject at hand before we switch to the correct topic on how your same tactics run wild there?

Besides, I highly doubt you are sophisticated enough to get past your christian conservative, moral majority, homophobia to understand gay rights anyway.

BTW don't even think about crowing you've won anything by my relative silence. Summer is over, school is in and some of us have work to get in the way of all this fun

[Strangelove]

I highly doubt you are sophisticated enough to get past your christian conservative, moral majority, homophobia to understand gay rights anyway.

What on God's green Earth has pedophilia to do with "gay rights"?!!

[Topper]

I highly doubt you are sophisticated enough to get past your christian conservative, moral majority, homophobia to understand gay rights anyway.

What on God's green Earth has pedophilia to do with "gay rights"?!!

Schooled by a priest?

[Topper]

A Foundation player.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world ... foundation

follow the money