LDS Freedom Forum

Members of our UKIP branch in Scotland will be going to a restuarant with Lord Monckton tomorrow for a social. Are there any questions that you would like to ask him?

Here's an interesting article. JB is a well known TV presenter from the 1970s and 1980s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... enial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I very much respect Lord Monckton. You are very fortunate to be able to meet with this man. I'd like his thoughts on the revolutions taking hold in the Arab world... good thing or a planned evil?

English Saint wrote:Are there any questions that you would like to ask him?

First, that's really great! Second, yes, ask him if he would accept a small gift (The Book of Mormon) as a token of your appreciation for his work.

I have both heard and read that Lord Christopher Monckton, the former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, believes and so stated that the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government. He reportedly stated that:

"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The world 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."

Could you please ask Lord Monckton how global warming hype is to be used to promote world government, and thank him for that exposure.

Monckton is a strange cat. He is not a scientist of any sort, but he cites a lot of scientific data and literature to back up his claims about climate change. However, when you check on his citations (and yes, I've personally done this,) you find out that 1) he sometimes makes up data--I'm not joking, and 2) when his data is right, his interpretation is usually the exact opposite of (or at least far beyond) the interpretations given by the scientists who published it. 3) He is pretty good at math, but when he uses scientific equations, he often puts the wrong kind of values in the equations, because while he can "plug-'n-chug," he doesn't understand the science behind the equations, their limitations, etc.

Now, I wouldn't expect most people to be able to tell that Monckton plays fast and loose with the science, because most people aren't scientists, and if they are they probably haven't studied climate in any depth. And yet, it still astonishes me that so many people believe everything he says. Why? Well, if he isn't an expert in the field, why would you just believe him over the experts? Also, he has gone about falsely claiming to be a member of Parliament. Parliament says he's not, but he still insists he is because of a bizarre legal argument that relies on a document that... once again... says the exact opposite of the point he cites it to support. Finally, he claims to have invented something that is supposed to be promising as a cure for 2/3 of all known diseases, including AIDS, MS, herpes, influenza, the common cold, and Graves' Disease.

Tell me, why would you put your trust in someone like that?

I'll tell you why. Because you already believe in the Giant Conspiracy, so he's telling you what you want to hear. I challenge you to check up on this guy. Whether there's a Giant Conspiracy, or not, you discredit yourself by uncritically accepting this guy's claims. You can start your investigation here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-mon ... rap-sheet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDawg wrote:Monckton is a strange cat. He is not a scientist of any sort, but he cites a lot of scientific data and literature to back up his claims about climate change. However, when you check on his citations (and yes, I've personally done this,) you find out that 1) he sometimes makes up data--I'm not joking, and 2) when his data is right, his interpretation is usually the exact opposite of (or at least far beyond) the interpretations given by the scientists who published it. 3) He is pretty good at math, but when he uses scientific equations, he often puts the wrong kind of values in the equations, because while he can "plug-'n-chug," he doesn't understand the science behind the equations, their limitations, etc.

Now, I wouldn't expect most people to be able to tell that Monckton plays fast and loose with the science, because most people aren't scientists, and if they are they probably haven't studied climate in any depth. And yet, it still astonishes me that so many people believe everything he says. Why? Well, if he isn't an expert in the field, why would you just believe him over the experts? Also, he has gone about falsely claiming to be a member of Parliament. Parliament says he's not, but he still insists he is because of a bizarre legal argument that relies on a document that... once again... says the exact opposite of the point he cites it to support. Finally, he claims to have invented something that is supposed to be promising as a cure for 2/3 of all known diseases, including AIDS, MS, herpes, influenza, the common cold, and Graves' Disease.

Tell me, why would you put your trust in someone like that?

I'll tell you why. Because you already believe in the Giant Conspiracy, so he's telling you what you want to hear. I challenge you to check up on this guy. Whether there's a Giant Conspiracy, or not, you discredit yourself by uncritically accepting this guy's claims. You can start your investigation here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-mon ... rap-sheet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean like Al Gore? Who puts their trust in him lord Monckton? I just happen to agree with his opinion on global warming hoax as an excuse to manipulate and gain power.

BDawg wrote:Monckton is a strange cat. He is not a scientist of any sort, but he cites a lot of scientific data and literature to back up his claims about climate change. However, when you check on his citations (and yes, I've personally done this,) you find out that 1) he sometimes makes up data--I'm not joking, and 2) when his data is right, his interpretation is usually the exact opposite of (or at least far beyond) the interpretations given by the scientists who published it. 3) He is pretty good at math, but when he uses scientific equations, he often puts the wrong kind of values in the equations, because while he can "plug-'n-chug," he doesn't understand the science behind the equations, their limitations, etc.

Now, I wouldn't expect most people to be able to tell that Monckton plays fast and loose with the science, because most people aren't scientists, and if they are they probably haven't studied climate in any depth. And yet, it still astonishes me that so many people believe everything he says. Why? Well, if he isn't an expert in the field, why would you just believe him over the experts? Also, he has gone about falsely claiming to be a member of Parliament. Parliament says he's not, but he still insists he is because of a bizarre legal argument that relies on a document that... once again... says the exact opposite of the point he cites it to support. Finally, he claims to have invented something that is supposed to be promising as a cure for 2/3 of all known diseases, including AIDS, MS, herpes, influenza, the common cold, and Graves' Disease.

Tell me, why would you put your trust in someone like that?

I'll tell you why. Because you already believe in the Giant Conspiracy, so he's telling you what you want to hear. I challenge you to check up on this guy. Whether there's a Giant Conspiracy, or not, you discredit yourself by uncritically accepting this guy's claims. You can start your investigation here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-mon ... rap-sheet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean like Al Gore? Who puts their trust in him lord Monckton? I just happen to agree with his opinion on global warming hoax as an excuse to manipulate and gain power.

I really appreciate Lord Monckton's info on the Climate Change hoax. He spent a lot of time touring the US and warning the US against the Copenhagen Treaty and talking about the science, especially the work by Litzen at MIT. He also exposed the ClimateGate emails. However, he is a member of the "Order of Malta" and that gives me pause.

What the globalists are after with regard to the US is not just a carbon tax, or control grid, or to destroy the US. By fueling both sides (Monckton, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, etc) I think what they want is to divide America, trigger a civil war, and while we are fighting amongst our selves, leave us open to a First Strike and invasion by Russia and China.

Pres. Monson has warned us against Anger.

davedan wrote:I really appreciate Lord Monckton's info on the Climate Change hoax. He spent a lot of time touring the US and warning the US against the Copenhagen Treaty and talking about the science, especially the work by Litzen at MIT. He also exposed the ClimateGate emails. However, he is a member of the "Order of Malta" and that gives me pause.

What the globalists are after with regard to the US is not just a carbon tax, or control grid, or to destroy the US. By fueling both sides (Monckton, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, etc) I think what they want is to divide America, trigger a civil war, and while we are fighting amongst our selves, leave us open to a First Strike and invasion by Russia and China.

Pres. Monson has warned us against Anger.

So you "appreciate Lord Monckton's info" about climate change, even though it has been shown that he makes it up. Your only concern is that he belongs to the "Order of Malta," which is a Catholic charitable organization. I'm sort of at a loss to understand your reasoning.

Rand wrote:You mean like Al Gore? Who puts their trust in him lord Monckton? I just happen to agree with his opinion on global warming hoax as an excuse to manipulate and gain power.

And you don't mind if he manufactures his evidence?

Al Gore sometimes focused on worst-case scenarios, made a couple minor mistakes, and so on, but for the most part he was just repeating what most of the scientists were saying. Monckton makes up data, so please don't excuse your trust in someone like Monckton by throwing out Al Gore's name. It's Monckton against 97-98% of the climate scientists, not Monckton against Gore.

ask if the Tavistock Institute is legit

So you "appreciate Lord Monckton's info" about climate change, even though it has been shown that he makes it up. Your only concern is that he belongs to the "Order of Malta," which is a Catholic charitable organization. I'm sort of at a loss to understand your reasoning.

1. The man-produced-Co2 climate change claim is false. Lord Monckton doesn't need to make up data or exaggerate to prove this point. He may make stronger assertions using Dr. Litzen's data that Litzen doesn't necessarily make in his paper. But, peer-reviewed papers are not really the place where strong political assertions are made especially if the paper is trying to publish data that runs against the grain.

I know for a fact that Litzen is strongly against the man-produced-c02-climate-change theory. While Litzen doesn't go on a diatribe in his papers, it is not misrepresenting him to use his data to make strong assertions against the current theory.

This would be in contrast to the IPCC who used the data of many climate scientists and made assertions in support of man-produced-co2-climate change which the scientists themselves did not agree with and asked that their names be taken off the IPCC report because they did not agree with the interpretation and conclusions of the IPCC report. However, the UN, refused to remove their names from the report because they insisted on using their data, but refused to change their claims, interpolations, and assertions in favor of the man-produced-co2-climate change theory. (see global warming swindle documentary by bbc)

2. Charitable organizations. Evil men have been hiding their crimes behind the facade of charitable organizations for thousands of years.

So you "appreciate Lord Monckton's info" about climate change, even though it has been shown that he makes it up.

Monckton isn't the only one who is "making up" his data. The leaked emails from East Anglia proves manipulation on the AGW side also. There are just as many scientists that disagree with AGW that support it. It's interesting to me as a lay person to see how these so called scientists say there is a consensus when so many are in disagreement. It's also strange that the pro AGW people have now changed the name of their movement to Anthropomorphic Climate Change rather than Global Warming since it seems the warming they "predicted" isn't happening. Beware of false prophets in the last days...BDawg. To me it is all deception and distraction from what is really going on in the world/Babylon. The idea that a trace gas in our atmosphere wields so much power while ignoring that huge burning fusion ball in the sky and it's effects on climate is just ludicrous.

davedan wrote: 1. The man-produced-Co2 climate change claim is false. Lord Monckton doesn't need to make up data or exaggerate to prove this point. He may make stronger assertions using Dr. Litzen's data that Litzen doesn't necessarily make in his paper. But, peer-reviewed papers are not really the place where strong political assertions are made especially if the paper is trying to publish data that runs against the grain.

I know for a fact that Litzen is strongly against the man-produced-c02-climate-change theory. While Litzen doesn't go on a diatribe in his papers, it is not misrepresenting him to use his data to make strong assertions against the current theory.

This would be in contrast to the IPCC who used the data of many climate scientists and made assertions in support of man-produced-co2-climate change which the scientists themselves did not agree with and asked that their names be taken off the IPCC report because they did not agree with the interpretation and conclusions of the IPCC report. However, the UN, refused to remove their names from the report because they insisted on using their data, but refused to change their claims, interpolations, and assertions in favor of the man-produced-co2-climate change theory. (see global warming swindle documentary by bbc)

2. Charitable organizations. Evil men have been hiding their crimes behind the facade of charitable organizations for thousands of years.

Hi DaveDan,

The guy's name is Dick Lindzen, not "Litzen". In any case, in 2009 he published a paper that was supposed to strongly challenge the consensus, but subsequently a number of various serious errors were found in his approach. Lindzen even admits some of the errors and says he has another paper coming out soon, where they are supposedly fixed. We'll see how that goes, I guess, but in the meantime, you seem to be saying that you reject what 97-98% of the experts say because one particular expert disagrees. You don't know what anyone has said in response to Lindzen's paper, and you don't even know what the paper says. You don't even know his name.

Is it any wonder, then, that you also cast aspersions on the integrity of members of a Catholic charity with no evidence whatsoever? Like I said, you believe whatever you want to believe, no matter whom you wantonly accuse of gross crimes.

2BFree wrote:

So you "appreciate Lord Monckton's info" about climate change, even though it has been shown that he makes it up.

Monckton isn't the only one who is "making up" his data. The leaked emails from East Anglia proves manipulation on the AGW side also. There are just as many scientists that disagree with AGW that support it. It's interesting to me as a lay person to see how these so called scientists say there is a consensus when so many are in disagreement. It's also strange that the pro AGW people have now changed the name of their movement to Anthropomorphic Climate Change rather than Global Warming since it seems the warming they "predicted" isn't happening. Beware of false prophets in the last days...BDawg. To me it is all deception and distraction from what is really going on in the world/Babylon. The idea that a trace gas in our atmosphere wields so much power while ignoring that huge burning fusion ball in the sky and it's effects on climate is just ludicrous.

Hi 2B,

1. The leaked emails prove no such thing. For example, the whole thing about "hiding the decline" is complete nonsense, as explained here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... ah-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. You say that "so many" are in disagreement with the consensus. How many? A couple academic studies of the issue have shown that 97-98% of working climate scientists agree that humans are significantly affecting climate. Do you have any info to contradict that? Senator Inhofe's office put together a list of over 1000 scientists who had disagreed with the IPCC. Most of them weren't climate specialists of any sort, but he advertised that it was full of IPCC authors who were now dissenting! Well, if you count them up, it turns out to be less than 1% of the IPCC authors.

3. It's "anthropogenic" climate change, not "anthropomorphic". And the warming so far is right in the predicted range. In case you're interested, that's exactly the data Monckton made up. See this page:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... kes-it-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4. See how easily you call people "false prophets"? The fact is that climate modelers DON'T ignore changes in solar output, but for the last 50 years or so, solar output hasn't changed much.

Joseph Smith once said that there's no salvation in believing an evil report about your neighbor, and he insisted on hard evidence before accusing people of things. Most of what I see in this forum is a bunch of people accusing thousands of others of all kinds of gross crimes based on... well, nothing but rumors that they could easily check, but they're too lazy.

1. The leaked emails prove no such thing. For example, the whole thing about "hiding the decline" is complete nonsense, as explained here:

Please check out these articles and postings on "Climategate"...it's much more than just the "hide the decline" issue which is suspicious phraseology.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

2. You say that "so many" are in disagreement with the consensus. How many? A couple academic studies of the issue have shown that 97-98% of working climate scientists agree that humans are significantly affecting climate. Do you have any info to contradict that? Senator Inhofe's office put together a list of over 1000 scientists who had disagreed with the IPCC. Most of them weren't climate specialists of any sort, but he advertised that it was full of IPCC authors who were now dissenting! Well, if you count them up, it turns out to be less than 1% of the IPCC authors.

Here you go...of course this is not a complete list as it says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming

3. It's "anthropogenic" climate change, not "anthropomorphic". And the warming so far is right in the predicted range. In case you're interested, that's exactly the data Monckton made up. See this page:

Please excuse my mistake on the anthropogenic vs anthropomorphic...so if the "warming" is in the "predicted" range why does it show that temperatures have been in decline for the last 10+ years to the point that the "movement" has had to change its title to "climate change"? BTW we all know "climate change" is a catch all so that whatever the "climate" does it can be blamed on those nasty humans.

Here's an article which debunks the whole idea that CO2 drives temperature...enjoy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/c ... -ice-ages/

4. See how easily you call people "false prophets"? The fact is that climate modelers DON'T ignore changes in solar output, but for the last 50 years or so, solar output hasn't changed much.

It seems we have assumed that all the affect of global warming are not desirable. May be global warming isn't so bad. Here's a list of GOOD things that more CO2 and warming will provide:

Ten Reasons Why Global Warming Is Good For You

Posted on May 26, 2009 in Latest News

You might have heard about the dangers global warming presents to the earth, to the humans and the animals. Scientists have predicted that global warming, caused due to the emission of greenhouse gases can cause rise in sea levels, floods, and storms etc..But, few scientists and researchers feel that the negative impact of global warming is over exaggerated. In fact, global warming may do us a great deal good. Here are a few reasons why global warming might be good for you:

10. Decreased Cold Related Deaths: Every year, many people are killed in the winter due to cold spells. Global warming can warm up the earth and reduce the number of cold spells, thereby, protecting several people from cold-induced deaths
9. More Rainfall: Warmer temperatures would mean increased evaporation of the water bodies, which can in turn increase the amount of rainfall. Well, we all know how beneficial rainfall can be…
8. Lower transportation costs: Automobile drivers and truckers can have a tough time removing the snow on the road. Extreme cold weather can completely stop the transport including air travel and water transport. Global warming can make travel smooth and transportation easy
7. Delay in the Earth’s Ice Age: The onset of the next ice age can trigger more deaths to the mankind and animals. However, researchers say that the emitted carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can prolong the onset of the next ice age
6. Fewer Forest Fires: Researchers at ULCA indicate that global warming might have reduced the intensity of Santa Ana winds, which trigger forest fires in Southern California. Global warming reduces the temperature variation between the land and the oceans, thereby reducing the impact of hot winds –which would mean fewer forest fires
5. Expansion of Agricultural lands: Scientists say that global warming will open new areas for agriculture. It is predicted that global warming will increase the cultivable land in Canada, Europe, and the United States
4. New avenues in commercial fishing: Melting of the water bodies frozen with ice can open up new avenues in commercial fishing. Arctic nations, previously choked with ice, are already providing new opportunities for commercial fishing
3. Opportunities for oil and gas exploration: According to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report, rising global temperatures will melt the ice present in the arctic region and make the oil and gas exploration in these regions easy.
2. More Mining: Global warming can melt frozen area s and provide opportunities for mining. It is estimated that global warming can transform Greenland into mining powerhouse
1. New Tourist Opportunities: Think about all the beautiful places which are covered with snow. Melting of the snow capped mountains and other areas can promote the growth of greenery and make way for new tourist spots

Although, global warming can make us frown, we tend to overlook all the above benefits. What more, global warming can expose huge amounts of oil, natural gas, and platinum, diamond, iron and other minerals. All this can definitely improve the business opportunities and push the economy to the top. After all, global warming might be good for you

How much CO2 does a volcanic eruption produce?

InfoWarrior82 wrote:How much CO2 does a volcanic eruption produce?

According to the USGS the annual CO2 output of volcanoes worldwide is around 200 million tons while the annual CO2 output of those nasty humans constitutes 28 Billion tons. So if you trust the governments figures, volcanoes produce less that 10% of what humans do. But again the predictions of catastrophes due to the generation of CO2 into the atmosphere seem tenuous and it actually may be to our advantage to have more "plant food" CO2 in our air. Hummmmm....makes you wonder why the Global Warmist are so freaked out about this. May be because the pluses far outweigh the minuses and it would make this world a much nicer place to live...kind of like a paradise?

Sorry I didn't get to read your replies before we met Lord M.

I managed to sit almost opposite him in the restuarant, so I got to chat to him for much of the evening. While we were waiting to be seated none other than Gordon Brown and his family (plus a couple of armed minders) came into the restuarant. He was seated at a table at the other end of the restuarant. My wife says he kept on looking over at us.

Lord M had to disappear for nearly an hour before dinner to do an interview over Skype with your Tea Party movement in the US. He said that he told the audience that there is only one thing we should do with the UN: abolish it! He said there were great cheers from the audience when he said that.

I asked him questions about public figures should deal with abuse from the climate change mafia. He said he gets abuse all the time. Al Gore et al refuse to be inteviewed with him or face him in a live debate.

Lord M is a very interesting man and well worth meeting. I hope he continues to form alliances between British patriots and American patriots so that we can fight the NWO together. He is well received every where he goes. The establishment must hate him.

I should get to meet him again as he is our lead candidate in the Scottish elections in May. I will ask him some more questions then.

2BFree wrote:Please check out these articles and postings on "Climategate"...it's much more than just the "hide the decline" issue which is suspicious phraseology.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

Been there, done that, and when you examine all the evidence it boils down to a few people who 1) got snotty about some colleagues they thought were idiots, 2) bragged about trashing papers they thought were stupid in reviews, 3) talked about doing unprofessional things (like making sure a couple papers didn't end up in the IPCC report) that they obviously didn't end up doing (because the papers did make it in the report), and 4) ducking some FOI requests from people who had a history of harassing climate scientists with stupid requests. They don't come out smelling like a rose, but the accusations of conspiracy turn out to be so much ridiculous nonsense.

So someone hacks into an e-mail system and reveals that people are people. The world trembles.

Here you go...of course this is not a complete list as it says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming

Don't you think your list proves my point? First comb through and see how many are not climate specialists. Then count them up. Compared to the thousands who work in the area, this is a tiny, tiny fraction. I think it's rather sad that, even though they don't really have the background to make informed decisions, so many people would dismiss the views of the vast majority of the experts just because a few experts here and there say what they want to hear.

Please excuse my mistake on the anthropogenic vs anthropomorphic...so if the "warming" is in the "predicted" range why does it show that temperatures have been in decline for the last 10+ years to the point that the "movement" has had to change its title to "climate change"? BTW we all know "climate change" is a catch all so that whatever the "climate" does it can be blamed on those nasty humans.

First, Climate models are not good for predicting short-term behavior (i.e., less than a couple decades). This is because it is a nonlinear system whose short-term trajectory depends very, very sensitively on the initial conditions put into the model and the exact details of the model. Therefore, a "good" climate model (at this point) is one that behaves pretty much like a real climate system, and whose average behavior over multiple decades is close to that of the real climate system. But if you look at the individual model runs, you find out that all the models predict that average temperatures will go down sometimes--even for periods of several years. The different models just aren't in sync with respect to when that happens. (Which is one reason why nobody claims they are good for predicting over only a few years.)

Second, you have been lied to, or are being influenced by people who don't understand statistics. Take any global average temperature dataset you like, fit a trendline over "the last 10+ years," and you will find that the trend is positive. It isn't statistically significant until you go back over 15 years, but that's quite normal for a "noisy" system like the climate, with lots of random fluctuations from year to year. (And don't bother coming back with the "data has been corrupted" canard. The UAH satellite dataset shows about the same trends as all the others, and it is managed by two climate contrarians, John Christy and Roy Spencer.)

Finally, your comment about "climate change" is nonsense. Plenty of scientists still talk about "global warming," and that's still the expectation. But when the warming is "global," it turns out that some places get cooler! It's just that MOST places get hotter. Also, when the global average gets warmer, precipitation patterns shift around, so that some places get wetter, and others get drier, so it's more than just the temperature that's changing. So here's the problem. Scientists say "global warming," and some people say, "But it isn't hotter in MY town. I could use some global warming, heh, heh." Scientists sigh and start saying "climate change" to be more clear, and the same chuckleheads come back with, "Did you hear how those scientists changed the name because it isn't warming any more?" We can't win against determined ignorance.

Here's an article which debunks the whole idea that CO2 drives temperature...enjoy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/c ... -ice-ages/

Read it, and it's absurd. The temperature changes in the glacial-interglacial cycles are thought to have been initiated by changes in the distribution of incoming sunlight due to wobbling of the Earth's axis, and the like. This caused the ice sheets to melt back or move forward at the poles, which made it so the amount of sunlight reflected back to space changed, which drove temperature changes, which caused more or less CO2 to be dissolved in the oceans, which enhanced the temperature changes. In other words, when the engineer (not a climate scientist) who wrote the article says that it couldn't have been all due to changes in CO2, the paleoclimate community says a collective, "Duh!"

4. See how easily you call people "false prophets"? The fact is that climate modelers DON'T ignore changes in solar output, but for the last 50 years or so, solar output hasn't changed much.

It seems we have assumed that all the affect of global warming are not desirable. May be global warming isn't so bad. Here's a list of GOOD things that more CO2 and warming will provide:

I take it you accept that climatologists have NOT ignored changes in solar output, as you accused? Now you seem to be claiming that they are ignoring possible positive effects of global warming, but once again you have been misinformed. Read the Working Group 2 volume of the IPCC report, and you will see that they do take stuff like this into account. I'll give you an example off the top of my head. In your next comment you say that it might be good to have more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's "plant food". The WG2 volume actually mentions that, takes it into account, and finds that there will be some initial benefits, which are expected to be overwhelmed by the rapid warming effects after a few decades. So the fact is that THEY are trying to take all factors into account, while YOU are the one who is ignoring part of the story. (BTW, the part about delaying the next ice age is rubbish. That's 10s of thousands of years off, yet.)

As I said before, you are pretty free with calling others "false prophets," when the people YOU listen to can be shown to be telling whoppers time after time after time.

English Saint wrote:I should get to meet him again as he is our lead candidate in the Scottish elections in May. I will ask him some more questions then.

Ask him why he claims to be a member of Parliament, when Parliament won't even give him a library card.

BDawg wrote:

English Saint wrote:I should get to meet him again as he is our lead candidate in the Scottish elections in May. I will ask him some more questions then.

Ask him why he claims to be a member of Parliament, when Parliament won't even give him a library card.

I take it you're not a fan of Lord M et al?

I forgot to mention that I asked Lord M who he thinks will lead the way in brining down the AGW fraud and the eco-fascist movement, and he said the United States.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011 ... g-of-ipcc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So BDawg...you are an apparent advocate for AGW. Are you also an advocate and agree with the political and financial goals and desired actions that the other AGW activists are wanting to implement? Do you truly believe that we must tax the world based upon the "carbon footprint" of each person? Do you think doing so will really reduce the CO2 levels globally especially when some countries will be "exempt" from the taxes? Are you an advocate for the carbon trading schemes that have been set up to buy and sell carbon "credits"? Do you believe a global government is needed to control AGW and to reduce the population of the world by up to 90% which has been proposed by many AGW activists? Just wondering dude where you're coming from...