6
Feb
Feb
Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group
Lord Monckton is having just too much fun Down Under. The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, architect, mathematician and climate change sceptic, while on a speaking tour of Australia to spread his message that climate change activists are “bed-wetters and liars, ” took the time to debate Rupert Posner from The Climate Group, who claims dangerous man-made global warming is occurring and action must be taken to stop it now. The debate was on the on Mornings with Jon Faine show.
Listen to the debate:
[audio:monckton-posner-debate.mp3]
Source: ABC Melbourne – Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Possibly related posts:
- “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed” by Lord Monckton– a free 43-page report for download
- Lord Monckton calls out Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
- Lord Monckton rips Scientific American’s climate lies
- Lord Monckton: “Come on Al baby, I’m waiting.”
- Lord Monckton takes apart a Greenpeace activist with facts
john as signed off due to an inability to answer siimple scientific questions. on a debating level, i think that means HE LOSES ? ?
I think you’ll find that it’s you and your ilk that have lost dear boy
@David Brown.. yawn… I’ve heard it all before many, many times and know where you’re coming from.
Yes that’s right I politely suggest you go back to the lies on real climate.. you know the site that doesn’t allow anyone to comment if they don’t agree with their point of view, however much it is based on fraudulent data and biased studies that have been peer reviewed by.. who is it now? Ahh yes Greenpeace!
Oh and we mustn’t forget about Raj Pachauri, Al Gore et al who have personally benefited from this scam for years. Conflicts of interest, pure and simple!
Please don’t treat us like fools Mr Brown; when this disappears like a cloud of harmless CO2 in the atmosphere I promise I won’t say ‘I told you so’.. often!
He loses? We having a 6th grade playground fight here or something? You need a prozac or two. Calm down.
I was merely getting some url’s for you to read up on plants during and even pre-cambrian. Takes more than an instant if you want to do somthing besides consulting the Greenpeace How To Handle Deniers Booklet.
I don’t know where you get your information from but I’d suggest a re-think on what you’re doing. Open your mind to other possibilities. Try thinking, don’t be a lemming.
No plants in Cambrian? Please read up,,,,please note none of this is from Lord Monckton. Some even claim plants evolved before the Cambrian Period. All indicate plants. Note Wikipedia is not generally a reliable source of information (I know it says no plants during the cambrian period, I looked). Read this from CBS, which is not known for being pro-denier, about what goes on at Wikipedia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
Sites about plants in Cambrian period.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114319.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/1482382.stm
http://www.evidenceweb.net/factfile_search_results.php?p_PRIKEY=482&p_SEARCHTYPE=Prediction
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5740
Read someting besides propaganda please.
carrie, you can yawn but i do not know why your tired ? its certainly not from thinking . ”if youve heard it all before ‘ some of it should have sunk in then ? the earth is warming and you have no natural explanation for it . it is a scam , a hoax, a communist plot. 5 emails out of context and only partially revealed, is your only argument. backed by poor. non peer reviewed junk science. you like john evade answering the most basic scientific question on the issue. you only have a political ideology and a conspiracy theory. skepticism is healthy but what you have borders on a mental illness
What context do you propose we take “… trick … to hide the decline” in? It’s all well saying something is out of context, well, then, show what context it is in so that it doesn’t actually mean what it says!
Also, what context is this in: “… will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is”? Again, what context could that be in so that it doesn’t mean exactly what it says?!
What you are saying is equivalent to a witness saying in court that the witness saw a guy holding a gun to another guy’s head shouting “I’m going to kill you!” and when the witness ran off to call the police the witness heard a gun shot and upon the police arriving, the guy who had the gun held to his head was dead. I don’t see “That phrase was totally out of context” as a defence. If it smells like a rat, acts like a rat and looks like a rat, it definitely ain’t a puppy!
john , i said ”no land plants ”.during the cambrian period and that is a verfiable fact . plants in the sea evolved prior to the cambrian . algae [ on land ] flourished on land not land plants as we know them today. you do not understand even basic science and have the gall to have an opinion on the subject. sea levels were also 400 feet higher than they are today during the cambrian times.? something that monckton ignores. plants can photosynthesise at under 200pm of co2. a dramatic increase in c02 would not be good for the planet. i do not use wikipedia. i am backed by scientific consensus.
David.
Cut from Science Daily….this is more of a beliver sight from what I can see so don’t tell me you don’t beleive it. Per this study, Land Plants were around pre-cambrain. Had you read any of the url’s I posted you would have seen it.
“The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago–much earlier than previous estimates of around 480 million years ago, which were based on the earliest fossils of those organisms.”
Here is the link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010810070021.htm
john, do you believe volcanos emit more c02 than man . you have had one poor attempt at answering one question about land plants. try this one . . if the planet is warming as data fron nasa and the world met say, and we are going through a solar minimum. can you explain it scientifically. i am not interested in conspiracy nonsense just the science. also do you actually believe monckton received the nobel peace prize as he claims.?look forward to your answers
David…you know as well as I do that the NASA date and the MET data is busted. Phil Jones even admits no warming since 1995. Why do you ask about it? You think everyone is stupid?
Monckton admitted it was a joke. Regardless compared to the lies of Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et all, it pales in comparison.
Now go drum up some more techical BS to try and make your point.
david brown writes “do you actually believe monckton received the nobel peace prize as he claims.?”
Could david brown provide the source of this claim, please? Thanks.
I think I’ve just located the source of this claim.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html
I think the audio file of this interview is located at:
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6205&Itemid=134
I’m going to listen to it and report back.
Here’s my transcription of, what I believe is the relevant portion of the interview:
Other references to the claimed Nobel Peace Prize by Lord Monckton:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22430/Dishonest_Political_Tampering_with_the_Science_on_Global_Warming.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
Lord Monckton’s claim to the Nobel Peace Prize seems to be a send-up of both the Prize and the IPCC. Indeed, he has stated in more than one interview, when questioned directly about the matter that the claim is a joke.
Here is an excerpt from the Nobel Foundation regarding the IPCC receiving the Peace Prize:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
I hope the above has been of some use.
igor, ”trick” means” a trick of trade” it does not mean being dishonest . ”hide the decline’ was in relation to tree ring analysis not global temp. the email was from 1999. 1998 was a very hot year. so there was no decline of temp to hide anyway . you are talking of several emails out of thousands. scientists are people too. they biker, play politics get jealous etc. thats all those emails suggest . your conspiracy theory does not have credibility. it would be nice to check moncktons emails or emails from the oil industry . now they really would be interesting ?your gun analogy is poor, a man holding a gun on someone with witnesses present. is not open to interpretation or argument. the emails are open to both. i suggest you read the entire emails. as i have. to find out their true context. the one you missed ‘we cannot explain the cooling and its a travesty we cannot ” that was actually in relation to energy flows not global temp / you must also realise whoever stole the emails are criminals, possibly on the energy industry pay roll
So what you are saying is that Jones had to use a trick of the trade (yet to be identified) to hide the decline in temperatures from the tree ring data?.. It wouldn’t be the decline since MWP, would it? See, even in context it ain’t a puppy!
Yes, I didn’t think there was a point in discussing an email where (I think it was) Jones (who) was celebrating the death of a sceptic…
Unless you have evidence to the contrary or some insider knowledge, the “consensus” is that the emails were leaked and not stolen.
Energy industry you say? I thought it was the Russians or some other so-secret government agency that no government knows it exists?..
Why do you want to check Monckton’s emails, he always says that he will be happy to provide details he refers to in his debates, unlike Jones, Mann, &c…
Despite 1998 being a “very hot” year, Jones is now on record as admitting there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (a mere measly 0.12K per decade)…
Oh, and since 2002 there has been a decline of the same mere measly 0.12K per decade…