Lord Monckton coming to Australia

[chief]

Prominent British global warming sceptic Christopher Lord Monckton will visit Australia over the next two weeks on a public lecture tour.

Lord Monckton will speak in all mainland cities and be accompanied by leading Australian climate scientist Professor Ian Plimer author of the top selling book “Heaven+Earth – global warming: the missing science”.

His Sydney address will be Wednesday January 27 at the Sheraton on the Park at 5.30pm with a $20 donation to help cover costs.

He will also speak at Newcastle City Hall Thursday January 28 at 12.30pm and Brisbane Irish Club 3pm Friday January 29 and Noosa January 30.

Lord Monckton and Prof Plimer travel to Melbourne Monday February 1 at Sofitel Hotel 5.30pm and onto Canberra Wednesday February 3 at 3pm at the National Press Club.

Adelaide is Thursday February 4 7.30pm at Intercontinental Hotel and Perth February 8 at Parmelia Hilton 5.30pm.

Taken from The Weekly Times : http://www.weeklytimes.com.au/2010/0.../story_02.html

More info can be found here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bre...-1225817401456

I hope he gets to have a public debate albeit he wont get one though. It is unfortunate about his timing close to Australia Day as people will be distracted by the celebrations and Lord Monckton will not even get a mention.

I have not seen this tour advertised in any mainstream media. edit. I looked a little harder and found some websites promoting the tour. In contrast to most print, radio and webpage media claiming that the sky is falling.

The question is, who will be going?

[cs123]

Wasn't he on Sunrise (Ch7) this morning?

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by cs123

Wasn't he on Sunrise (Ch7) this morning?

Yep!
The climate change believer seemed very nervous with what he was saying, with him there. But it wasn't really a debate.

[Keepleft]

Thanks for the heads up, IF I get the dang chance I'll go see him. Will probably have to fight my way through militant climate change socialists.

Some pollies on FB would like to see this.

[BHDOGS]

Excellent now i can plan to be anywhere but within listening distance of this loser

[cob115]

thanks for posting the info cheif : im taking my son to see him in Adelaide,had a gut full of left wing ************** ramming man made global warming crap down my neck, i hope there are some millitant left wing protestors in Adelaide Keepleft :evil3: for to long those idiots have had there own way

[vik351]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Excellent now i can plan to be anywhere but within listening distance of this loser

I got a warning from a mod and 10 points kept for 1000 days for a post that they didnt like... : : :

How come you can get away with it...

I know who the loser is...

vik... see ya there Pat...

[FASTXR]

This link has some more info on Lord Monckton's appearances and details on how you can get tickets:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/mon...-dates-venues/

Ordered my tickets yesterday for the lecture in Canberra and I'm really looking forward to hearing him speak

[rodderz]

Hopefully it raises some awareness of the other side of the coin that what the mainstream media and govt have been sprouting

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Excellent now i can plan to be anywhere but within listening distance of this loser

That terrific!! I'll buy you an airline ticken to Nopenhagen.

[FASTXR]

I'd chip in too but I'm not sure whether the record cold snap over there has thawed out enough for flights to land yet?? :evil3:

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by FASTXR

I'd chip in too but I'm not sure whether the record cold snap over there has thawed out enough for flights to land yet?? :evil3:

Oh but haven't you heard, the cold snap is attributed to global warming
:

[saber]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Excellent now i can plan to be anywhere but within listening distance of this loser

Care to state your reasons why you wont hear what he has to say??
I may or may not agree with the man, but it's refreshing to hear what the "other side" have to say. Gives balance to the argument.

[Spudz27]

I would love to go. I am a believer that this is just earths cycle, and all this global warming etc is a way for governments to make more money. I am sorry but here in Albany you wouldn't know it is summer, hottest day is 41 ONCE, most days are a pleasant 25, most of summer has been 25 under. However only 400km away perth has over 30 nearly everyday with 40+ 3 days in a row. It is just the way the climate is, Global warming certainly isn't happening here lol.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Oh but haven't you heard, the cold snap is attributed to global warming
:

But Al Gore told me it will always be hot!!

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by chief

Paccompanied by leading Australian climate scientist Professor Ian Plimer author of the top selling book “Heaven+Earth – global warming: the missing science”.

This shits me. He is not a leading Australian climate scientist. He's a geologist who wrote a book full of inconclusive crap. He has never EVER answered questions from people asking for a please explain about misrepresented or iffy statements in his book.

Anyone who isn't prepared to defend their own work really isn't credible.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by rodderz

Hopefully it raises some awareness of the other side of the coin that what the mainstream media and govt have been sprouting

Guys, there is no other side of the coin or storey on this issue.

There are no reputable scientists that have come up with anything that disputes the main claims/causes concerning climate change/global warming. The “other side” as you put it, only has one objective, to stop any action on agw by any devious means, as it may affect the bottom line on their business or standard of living .

Cmon, how many “other sides” of the storey have been tried on? Most denialists havent even decided which part of denial they will concentrate on, ie if the earth has warmed up- its not man’s fault, or that the earth isnt warming
“its the sun”
“its volcanoes”
“fautly weather stations”
“the planet has been cooling since 1998”
“scientists wanting government grants”
“governments wanting taxes because they dont know how to implement “other taxes”’
“its natural variation”
“concentrations of CO2 are so small they cant do anything”
“there is no evidence”
“increasing temp causes more CO2, not the other way around”
“al Gore is just a failed politician who invented agw so he could make money duping the world”

I could go on, but the list is extensive and gets recycled ad nauseum by denialists despite all of these being patiently and well refuted many years ago.
For a complete listing, buy Plimer’s book, he may have missed putting one in but I doubt it. There would be no point in asking him for the details, while he appears to have alzeimers disease, it is more likely, as seen on the 7.30 report, that much of his book was put together by other members of the denial industry.

The similiarties between this and the smoking denial of the late 60s and early 70s is remarkable, in fact we even have some of the same players.

Monckton has found a scientist that reckons the global warming calculations due to increasing co2 are out by factor of 6 according to his analysis of the latest satellite data. Unfortunately, this scientist hasnt published his findings for peer review, and numerous other scientists using data from the same satellites have found exactly the opposite.

If Moncktons claims were true, it would be the single most important finding in the history of the 21st century, it would stop the agw threat overnight. Why isnt all the world getting excited about it, why arent oil companies jumping up and down about it?. The answer is simple, the scientist (Richard Lindzen) –( did Monckton mention that he denies smoking is a cause of lung cancer and has numerous claims refuting agw that have been infamously proven wrong, why not ask him about this at his speech), is considered uncredible in the scientific community and by most of the reputable media and even companies with vested interests in denying agw, that’s why you are hearing it from Monckton and no-one else!.

(Surely you dont think the good Lord has some pipeline to this wonderful discovery that no-one else could find)
Its all a game to players like Monckton and he is preying on the ignorance/greed of those who dont want to know about agw in presenting Lindzen as a credible authority.

The claim is just a tactic to delay any action on climate change and to confuse the public that there is uncertainty. Lindzen is never going to submit a paper for peer review because then he would have to supply the details of his calculations and methodologies behind his claims(so other scientists could verify his findings), the mere fact he hasnt submitted anything being evidence in itself he has nothing.

Paying money to listen to Monckton, better off saving it for those higher power bills. :

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Guys, there is no other side of the coin or storey on this issue.

That just about sums up the attitude of the lunatics telling us global warming is happening.

BTW, they're also spending 50,000 times more than the 'denialists' to convince us it's happening too ;)

[RG]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Guys, there is no other side of the coin or storey on this issue.

There are no reputable scientists that have come up with anything that disputes the main claims/causes concerning climate change/global warming. The “other side” as you put it, only has one objective, to stop any action on agw by any devious means, as it may affect the bottom line on their business or standard of living .

Cmon, how many “other sides” of the storey have been tried on? Most denialists havent even decided which part of denial they will concentrate on, ie if the earth has warmed up- its not man’s fault, or that the earth isnt warming
“its the sun”
“its volcanoes”
“fautly weather stations”
“the planet has been cooling since 1998”
“scientists wanting government grants”
“governments wanting taxes because they dont know how to implement “other taxes”’
“its natural variation”
“concentrations of CO2 are so small they cant do anything”
“there is no evidence”
“increasing temp causes more CO2, not the other way around”
“al Gore is just a failed politician who invented agw so he could make money duping the world”

I could go on, but the list is extensive and gets recycled ad nauseum by denialists despite all of these being patiently and well refuted many years ago.
For a complete listing, buy Plimer’s book, he may have missed putting one in but I doubt it. There would be no point in asking him for the details, while he appears to have alzeimers disease, it is more likely, as seen on the 7.30 report, that much of his book was put together by other members of the denial industry.

The similiarties between this and the smoking denial of the late 60s and early 70s is remarkable, in fact we even have some of the same players.

Monckton has found a scientist that reckons the global warming calculations due to increasing co2 are out by factor of 6 according to his analysis of the latest satellite data. Unfortunately, this scientist hasnt published his findings for peer review, and numerous other scientists using data from the same satellites have found exactly the opposite.

If Moncktons claims were true, it would be the single most important finding in the history of the 21st century, it would stop the agw threat overnight. Why isnt all the world getting excited about it, why arent oil companies jumping up and down about it?. The answer is simple, the scientist (Richard Lindzen) –( did Monckton mention that he denies smoking is a cause of lung cancer and has numerous claims refuting agw that have been infamously proven wrong, why not ask him about this at his speech), is considered uncredible in the scientific community and by most of the reputable media and even companies with vested interests in denying agw, that’s why you are hearing it from Monckton and no-one else!.

(Surely you dont think the good Lord has some pipeline to this wonderful discovery that no-one else could find)
Its all a game to players like Monckton and he is preying on the ignorance/greed of those who dont want to know about agw in presenting Lindzen as a credible authority.

The claim is just a tactic to delay any action on climate change and to confuse the public that there is uncertainty. Lindzen is never going to submit a paper for peer review because then he would have to supply the details of his calculations and methodologies behind his claims(so other scientists could verify his findings), the mere fact he hasnt submitted anything being evidence in itself he has nothing.

Paying money to listen to Monckton, better off saving it for those higher power bills. :

Great post, I really admire you.........

[terra australis]

I refuse to believe anyone who's first name is "LORD".

[snappy]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Guys, there is no other side of the coin or storey on this issue.

There are no reputable scientists that have come up with anything that disputes the main claims/causes concerning climate change/global warming. The “other side” as you put it, only has one objective, to stop any action on agw by any devious means, as it may affect the bottom line on their business or standard of living .

Cmon, how many “other sides” of the storey have been tried on? Most denialists havent even decided which part of denial they will concentrate on, ie if the earth has warmed up- its not man’s fault, or that the earth isnt warming
“its the sun”
“its volcanoes”
“fautly weather stations”
“the planet has been cooling since 1998”
“scientists wanting government grants”
“governments wanting taxes because they dont know how to implement “other taxes”’
“its natural variation”
“concentrations of CO2 are so small they cant do anything”
“there is no evidence”
“increasing temp causes more CO2, not the other way around”
“al Gore is just a failed politician who invented agw so he could make money duping the world”

I could go on, but the list is extensive and gets recycled ad nauseum by denialists despite all of these being patiently and well refuted many years ago.
For a complete listing, buy Plimer’s book, he may have missed putting one in but I doubt it. There would be no point in asking him for the details, while he appears to have alzeimers disease, it is more likely, as seen on the 7.30 report, that much of his book was put together by other members of the denial industry.

The similiarties between this and the smoking denial of the late 60s and early 70s is remarkable, in fact we even have some of the same players.

Monckton has found a scientist that reckons the global warming calculations due to increasing co2 are out by factor of 6 according to his analysis of the latest satellite data. Unfortunately, this scientist hasnt published his findings for peer review, and numerous other scientists using data from the same satellites have found exactly the opposite.

If Moncktons claims were true, it would be the single most important finding in the history of the 21st century, it would stop the agw threat overnight. Why isnt all the world getting excited about it, why arent oil companies jumping up and down about it?. The answer is simple, the scientist (Richard Lindzen) –( did Monckton mention that he denies smoking is a cause of lung cancer and has numerous claims refuting agw that have been infamously proven wrong, why not ask him about this at his speech), is considered uncredible in the scientific community and by most of the reputable media and even companies with vested interests in denying agw, that’s why you are hearing it from Monckton and no-one else!.

(Surely you dont think the good Lord has some pipeline to this wonderful discovery that no-one else could find)
Its all a game to players like Monckton and he is preying on the ignorance/greed of those who dont want to know about agw in presenting Lindzen as a credible authority.

The claim is just a tactic to delay any action on climate change and to confuse the public that there is uncertainty. Lindzen is never going to submit a paper for peer review because then he would have to supply the details of his calculations and methodologies behind his claims(so other scientists could verify his findings), the mere fact he hasnt submitted anything being evidence in itself he has nothing.

Paying money to listen to Monckton, better off saving it for those higher power bills. :

Fair enough ive listen to what you had to say . But how could you not like a man that did expose the world goverment clause in the copenhagen treaty . Add that to why the Rudd Government doesn’t reveal what they are signing up to in Copenhagen. It hard not to feel dooped .
The was i see it if global warming is true , were screwed . If its not were screwed anyway.

An yes you maybe be write about that scientist , but honestly i dont trust him any less the ipcc or the U.N they have been proven to be riddled with corruption and above the law .

[snappy]

Originally Posted by terra australis

I refuse to believe anyone who's first name is "LORD".

good theory hope thats working for you . An by the way his first name is chris

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Guys, there is no other side of the coin or storey on this issue.

There are no reputable scientists that have come up with anything that disputes the main claims/causes concerning climate change/global warming.

Yes they have, what about:

Originally Posted by durtyharry

“its the sun”
“its volcanoes”
“fautly weather stations”
“the planet has been cooling since 1998”
“scientists wanting government grants”
“governments wanting taxes because they dont know how to implement “other taxes”’
“its natural variation”
“concentrations of CO2 are so small they cant do anything”
“there is no evidence”
“increasing temp causes more CO2, not the other way around”
“al Gore is just a failed politician who invented agw so he could make money duping the world”

Any Scientist that simply takes on a hypothesis, and sticks by it no matter what is not a Scientist. Any Scientific theory is always open to disrepute or falsification. To not consider any other view goes against what Science is all about.
Global warming is simply the leading theory at the moment, it doesn't make it law, and it doesn't make it a closed case.

What the public see are Politicians fighting it out, people who are taking one view point and running with it no matter what, and they wont be easily persuaded, they're too invested in it now.

I"m sorry I missed Lord Monckton, same as I would be sorry to miss Al Gore.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by Airmon

Yes they have, what about:

You think those frivolous "other sides of the coin" arguments I liste have some basis?

No, they dont, they have been refuted long ago, yes, I know that doesnt stop denialists trying it on the next sucker member of the public.

If you cant find why they are nonsense on the web, let me know and Ill steer you towards the relevant info.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by snappy

Fair enough ive listen to what you had to say . But how could you not like a man that did expose the world goverment clause in the copenhagen treaty . Add that to why the Rudd Government doesn’t reveal what they are signing up to in Copenhagen. It hard not to feel dooped .
The was i see it if global warming is true , were screwed . If its not were screwed anyway.
.

For goodness sake, being in a place surrounded by people that understand climate science(copenhagen), Monckton couldnt revert to his usual lies about ice caps getting thicker etc.

His only ploy was to create the commies under the bed fear(it worked), it appears that again checking the facts is not part of the makeup of the denialist:
from: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ton/index.html

Problem is, Monckton's reading of the proposed framework for negotiation -- hardly a completed treaty -- was woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed, it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly.
Here's the sole evidence in the framework for Monckton's claim:
The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(The COP to which that language refers is the Conference of the Parties, which the official U.N. Web site explains as, "the 'supreme body' of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention ... [and] is responsible for keeping international efforts to address climate change on track.")

Unfortunately for Monckton and those who've fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document's language, there's more than one meaning of the word "government." There's the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there's this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: "direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct."

[snappy]

"direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct."
Is that what we are afraid of .

[MO]

Well just for the record I'm as left as they come but I don't believe this global man made warming carp.
Now given that another thread on this subject was just given the lockwood I think this one should be as well.
durtyharry you protestith too much your a fool.

[snappy]

double post ,

[Auslandau]

Same same ...... but different!



| [/url] |