Comments on: Primo…Secundo…Tertio! Lord Monckton Exposes Advocates of Global Warming Dishonesty!

By: Francis of Assissi

Francis of Assissi — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:15:55 +0000

Hmmm… severe penalties for people who deliberately decieve???

Sounds to me like the McCain/Palin team will have some jail time to serve…

By: MikeNZ

MikeNZ — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:37:19 +0000

there should be severe penalties for people who deliberately decieve.
whether they have nobel prizes or not.

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:07:18 +0000

I ain’t heard no full-figured opera singers yet.
/henh

By: nuke

nuke — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:06:08 +0000

yeah, but, but, but….the debate is OVER!

The Goracle says so!

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:32:09 +0000

MA, Not certain what your motive for posting your comment about another blog, or all the links, is. I'm fully capable of discerning for myself, who is or is not delusional. On the issue of Lord Monckton's treatment, in regards to his article, I am also fully capable of discerning an arrogant and undeserved insult. That the leadership is so invested in promoting AGW, that they can't allow anything that challenges the view they are so invested in to be published, without making total asses of themselves, speaks volumes about the insecurity the APS leadership feels on this topic. Lord Monckton's comment,

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."

should cause any reasonable person to view the IPCC report with a critical eye. Even more so, when one considers that scientists didn't write the IPCC report, but bureaucrats at the UN. Even with all this, with thousands of scientists, from many different disciplines, having disagreements on the effects of man on the weather, the tired expression of a world wide consensus on AGW settling the matter, is totally absurd. Solid theory should stand up to tests, time after time. The current AGW arguments continue to fail those tests.

By: MA

MA — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:41:52 +0000

P.S. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/20/irony-gate-viscount-monckton-a-british-peer-says-his-paper-was-peer-reviewed-by-a-scientist-how-droll/

By: MA

MA — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:37:15 +0000

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/moncktons_fantasy_world.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/more_monckton_1.php
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html

As for taking notice of anything that comes out of ‘WattsUpWithThat’ – the site redefines ‘delusional’.

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:29:24 +0000

I posted a video very similar to that back in March. Frisco, Tx is just up the road from me by about fifteen minutes. Ain't nothing like the San you know.

By: Robert D

Robert D — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:33:39 +0000

I figured it would be familiar territory for the gang down south. I didn’t know there was a Frisco in Texas. I’ll stop referring to San Fran as Frisco in the future.

By: swampie

swampie — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:15:05 +0000

Dunno ’bout old n2l, but I’ve been to many of them places. I forwarded it to SwampMan to try to ignite an urge to travel again.