Monckton not allowed to debate with Gore today

SEE UPDATE BELOW FROM MONCKTON

I’m out of the political loop, and have no way of judging the merit of the claim, so I’m just going to link to this story. If it is true, it shows just how bad the treatment of different viewpoints has become in Washington. Perhaps Lord Monckton can give a comment or two here to either bolster or refute this story.

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Thursday, April 23, 2009 By Marc Morano

‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’

Climate Depot Exclusive

Washington DC – UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

UPDATE 8:30PM PST Lord Monckton weighed in on this story in comments. I thank hi for his candor and for telling his story firsthand here. He writes:

Once again I’m most grateful to Anthony Watts and his hard-working team for their kindness in exposing the less than democratic tactics of the Obama Democrats. The story circulated by the indefatigable Marc Morano is – as one would expect – accurate in every particular.

Early this week the Democrats told the Republicans they would have a “celebrity witness” for this morning’s hearing on the Waxman/Markey Bill, but they would not say who. The Republicans immediately contacted me and asked if they could tell the Dems they too were putting forward an undisclosed celebrity witness – me.

When the Dems eventually revealed that their “celebrity” was Al Gore, the Republicans told them I was to testify at the same time. The Dems immediately refused to allow the Republicans their first choice of witness. By the time they had refused, my jet was already in the air from London and I did not get the message till I landed in the US.

At first the Dems tried to refuse the Republicans the chance to replace me with a witness more congenial to them, but eventually – after quite a shouting-match – they agreed to let Newt Gingrich testify. The former Speaker of the House gave one of his best performances.

I attended the session anyway, as a member of the public, and tried to shake hands with Gore when he arrived, but his cloud of staffers surrounded him and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.

His testimony was as inaccurate as ever. He repeated many of the errors identified by the High Court in the UK. He appeared ill at ease and very tired – perhaps reflecting on the Rasmussen poll that shows a massive 13.5% swing against the bedwetters’ point of view in just one year.

My draft testimony will be posted at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org shortly, together with a brief refutation of Gore’s latest errors.

Finally, I have never said what one of your less polite correspondents has said I said about HIV. However, in 1987, at the request of the earliest researchers into the disease, I wrote articles in journals on both sides of the Atlantic recommending that AIDS should be treated as a notifiable disease, just like any other fatal, incurable infection. Had that standard public-health measure been taken – immediate, compulsory, permanent, but humane isolation of the then rather few carriers – many of the 25 million (UNAIDS figures) who have died and the 40 million who are currently infected and heading for death would have been spared. Sometimes, unfashionable points of view are right, and sometimes ignoring them can be a matter of life and death.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Al Gore, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

371 Responses to Monckton not allowed to debate with Gore today

  1. Timebandit says:

    And this suprises you … Why???

  2. Abitbol says:

    Not surprising !

  3. Kimw says:

    And quite right too. After all, Al Gore produced that wonderful film that alerted us all to the dangers of AGW, was Vice President and has a lovely home. Anyway, ‘Triumph of the Will’ as produced by Al Gore will stand as a beacon of “Truth’.

    Monckton ?, all he has is facts that show that AGW is the biggest scam in history.

    Strange that the promoters of AGW and the need for the public to revert to 1900 era economics will not allow debate.

  4. deadwood says:

    Waxman will not want to have rational people giving evidence when cameras are in the room.

    Lord Moncton will likely give evidence to an empty room after Waxman and Gore have gone off to celebrate the success of their media show.

  5. Charles Platt says:

    The only surprise, to me, is that anyone would find this surprising. At this point, Mr. Gore cannot be on a quest to discover the truth. He appears to believe that he has already established the truth.

    In addition, this is the man who appeared at TED and advised the audience to invest in “green” technologies, as he himself has done–these being the technologies which stand to benefit from government subsidies.

    I have no idea whether Mr. Gore is sincere, or is merely a political opportunist protecting his interests. He certainly has a renewed career (and a Nobel Prize) entirely founded on the precept that AGW is real and of desperate significance.

    Under these circumstances, he has absolutely no reason to debate anyone, and many reasons for not doing so.

  6. Lex says:

    Last year, on his tour through the Netherlands and meeting some high ranking Dutch officials, like ministers, the skeptics were not allowed to the debate with Al Gore.
    Needless to say that the number of skeptists has risen very significantly since then.

  7. Pat says:

    I am not one bit surprised about this. The lie will be exposed very soon anyway albeit too late to stop the grab for taxes and contol of our lives, liberties and freedoms.

  8. Flanagan says:

    How do you want someone who once said that “heterosexual AIDS transmission is a myth” and that “all people infected by VIH should be quarantined for life, this is until they actually die of it” to participate a democratic debate?

    I really understand the point of view of the organizers, there.

  9. JohnD says:

    CO2wards

  10. The Macolyte says:

    Hence proving that their arguments will not stand any form of scrutiny. If they had any real belief in, and strong evidence for, the agw case they would quite happily debate it – whether first or second in the debate.

    The fact that they resort to tactics like this plus pejorative terms such as ‘denialists’ and ad hominem attacks shows – definitively – that they know that they have lost the argument.

    The sooner Nature shows the fallacies of agw the better. I hope to live to see these charlatans discredited, preferably before they’re dead.

  11. John Silver says:

    Not cowards, just devious.

  12. K says:

    The Republican members can call their own witnesses. So he can get heard. Sort of.

    But the majority Dems control the hearings. They can certainly decide if he and Gore are heard together. And they can inconvenience those they don’t like in other ways.

    They can reschedule and delay at the last moment. Or they can suddenly decide he should appear earlier than agreed.

    Usually neither side plays very rough. But what to do about climate change is the biggest game on Earth. It might well get very rough.

  13. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    I would like to hear the arguments from a Pro AGW poster as to why,

    [1] If AGW is well supported by evidence, then why can’t Gore openly debate AGW? After all, how could he possibly lose, and surely an open debate would humiliate the sceptics.

    [2] How does shutting down open, public debate serve the interests of a free society, and free speech?

  14. Roger Knights says:

    Monkton and Morano ought to be able to parlay this into a few TV interviews within a few days. Maybe the minority members could hold a rump session at which he testifies, just to get it on the record.

  15. Mike Strong says:

    Al Gore is a skipping stone. A true car salesman. He turns his political machine into his next frontier to lecture and make money from it. AGW is no different. How he positions himself with cleverness is a familiar story.

    History: Back in 1990 or so, the thing about Al “inventing the internet” was based upon his (and the administration’s) survey of French technology called the “MiniTel”. It allowed every person in France with a phoneline, to get a free ASCII terminal monitor and keyboard (yes *free* under their socialist system) to look at bank accounts, do email, check stocks, etc. It was a text terminal… just like the PLATO system of the late 1970s developed by the University of Illinois, which I worked on. France was actually pretty advanced, at the time, with this capability. So, Al Gore used his staff’s info from France, to propel himelf into the limelight, no matter how twisted. He “invented” the internet, based upon the fact that Europe and Japan were ten years ahead of us on technology, disk drives, chips embedded in credit cards, and on-line interaction.

    He is doing this now with AGW and his shiny Nobel prize.

    Al knows how to glad-hand and use his charisma and good-ol-boy contacts to exploit views to promote his agenda. He knows how to close-out dissenters by simply being a sweetie-pie.

    Locking out Monckton is a tactic, just like Hansen testifying in the middle of summer, in front of Congress, with the air-conditioning disabled back in the 1980s.

    It is not a surprise, that Congress is still stuck in “group-think” Mode

    Global sea ice is growing. Get the word out.

  16. MIke McMillan says:

    Having shredded the IPCC models, Lord Monckton would hardly notice dismantling our Nobel Laureate.

    A wise move on the Democrats’ part.

  17. old construction worker says:

    Surprise,surprise.

  18. chillybean says:

    You can just imagine congress with their fingers in their ears saying LA,LA,LA,LA,LA Not Listening LA,LA,LA,LA,LA!

    I’ve done it myself (but I was only 5 years old).

  19. bushy says:

    Well if true the cat is now out of the bag. Given the recent swing in AGW support perhaps the msm will report on this – fingers crossed.

  20. Jeff B. says:

    He’s right. He would have dispatched Gore quickly.

  21. C Shannon says:

    Couldn’t they have had the decency to tell the man before he flew across an ocean?

    I’m honestly not that concerned by his not being allowed to speak because nobody in that chamber is open to being persuaded anyways. There is nothing he can do in there that he couldn’t also do by hitting the news circuit now that he is here.

    “International speaker snubbed by congress” – Should be worth a couple minutes on a handful of news programs and will likely give him more viewers than if he had merely testified. I hope he does just that, it would be a shame for him to have come all this way for nothing.

  22. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Let me get this straight.

    If this happened in a Court of Law, it’s saying that the Judge will allow testimony from witnesses for the Prosecution, but will deny the defence team the right to similar.

    Being the great lawyer that he is, I’m sure Mr Obama can see a slight deviation from the intentions of the founding fathers in how this democratic process is taking shape?

    Can’t he????

  23. Lindsay H says:

    We need to get in behind Monckton and suppport his right to be heard

  24. Perry Debell says:

    Gore is running scared. Marc Morano is right to highlight this act of rank cowardice by the Democrats. They have filled their diapers, as a consequence of an open letter by Viscount Monckton and now they are openly panicking in dread and terror, at the thought of further confrontation. The spineless smelly bastards. Do I hear the cry?
    “Nurse, nurse, I need changing please.” Yeah! Dump them.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

    There is also this as well. More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009. (Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”)

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

    In little over a year these stupid cretins like Ed Millipede will be evicted and better yet, their police protection will be withdrawn.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8014295.stm

    The power stations will get built, but the CO2 capture will NOT be implemented.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/04/cynical-and-meaningless.html

  25. Hoi Polloi says:

    Al Bore discusses with nobody.

  26. Neil Jones says:

    This is starting to sound like a siege mentality.

  27. Roger Knights says:

    OT: “Why Should We Lower the Bar on Healthcare Reform But Not Climate Change Policy?

    “Walter Alarkon in The Hill reports how Democrats in Congress are justifying the use of “reconciliation” procedures to support the President’s proposals for health care reform, while opposing it for the President’s climate change (carbon) policy. …

    “But why don’t such arguments apply to climate change policy as well? Maybe because the Democrats in Congress aren’t so sure they want to pass climate change policy on their own, with the lower 51-vote bar, precisely because the revenue increase, and the “losers” from that revenue increase, are much more obvious in the case of climate change.”

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/132669-why-should-we-lower-the-bar-on-healthcare-reform-but-not-climate-change-policy

  28. Kohl Piersen says:

    Yes! They are cowards. It is astonishing how many times this kind of scenario has been played out by AGW proponents seeking to avoid personal confrontion with the other side of the debate in public.

    I believe that many of them can forsee only too well that such an encounter would focus public attention squarely on the lack of hard evidence for the AGW case in a manner which simply does not happen in the blogosphere, learned journal articles media reports.

    In particular, it would be very difficult for the AGW proponent to explain why there is anything different about to-day’s climate as compared with past climate.

    That AGW is a non-problem would be clear.

    The solutions so earnestly proposed for this non-problem would be recognised as the vacuous and fanciful maunderings of self-promoting charlatans.

  29. Matt Bennett says:

    I’d say it’s got more to do with not wanting to give the floor to a ~snip~ of what is obvious to any thinking person who’s bothered to study the wide-ranging evidence with an open mind and an awareness that there’s no such thing as certainty. False credibility n’all that….

    Same reason Dawkins wouldn’t debate creationists.

    Good move.

  30. Alan the Brit says:

    I agree with Roger Knights, not sure what a Rump session is but I guess it is an unofficial hearing? Get it into the papers, keep up the pressure. Get the mileage done on this, in an electric car of course! What don’t they want the public to hear?

    As for the debate, having watched Lord Monckton speaking on video, & read many of his papers (can’t say I actually understood it all) & articles, there would be no debate form Mr Gore, just a stream of cold sweat running down his back coupled with a very uncomfortable warm sensation in his trousers, as Monckton enters the chamber!

  31. JamesG says:

    “Open mind”. That’s a good one. The comparison to religion is very apt.

  32. Ema Nymton says:

    [no profanity or insulting other poster please] ~ charles the moderator

  33. Ema Nymton says:

    [hmm...I think all your posts will likely be deleted given this pattern of profanity] ~ charles the moderator

  34. Ian says:

    What is it about the AGW supporters that they will not or cannot debate their corner? Like Monckton’s banning by the Democrats, I and others who are sceptical of AGW have been banned from RealClimate by Gavin Schmidt. What are they scared of?

  35. Hank says:

    Holy cow! Monckton knows how to pick a fight. Gore is a coward, no doubt about it. He’s afraid their are some big big holes in his thesis and Monckton knows exactly what they are.

  36. NickB says:

    Matt Bennett (02:06:50): “I’d say it’s got more to do with not wanting to give the floor to a ~snip~ of what is obvious to any thinking person who’s bothered to study the wide-ranging evidence with an open mind and an awareness that there’s no such thing as certainty. False credibility n’all that…”

    LOL!

    How can something be “obvious” if there’s “no such thing as certainty”?.

    This should be a contender for quote of the week!

    I love it when people defeat their own arguments.

  37. timbrom says:

    Anthony, OT, but it may be worth a new thread? This in the UK Daily Telegraph.

    New coal power stations to be built which may not cut emissions

    Usually more sceptical than other ‘papers in UK, again we see entirely uncritical acceptance of the CO2 IS BAD mantra. However … Could this be a neat bit of sleight of hand by HMG? We desperately need new power plants (but only if we kokwtow to the EU and close several perfectly serviceable coal powered stations). Therefore build nice, clean, new ones, promising that we’ll plug in the CCS when the technology is mature enough. Then, when CCS proves:

    a) Too difficult
    b) Too expensive
    c) not necessary after all (c.2013)

    carry on building and bring on line earlier than planned. It’s clear the Greens smell a rat, even those who aren’t simply opposed to coal on principle. For once, I think they’re right!

  38. Denis Hopkins says:

    Re: Nick B
    I interpreted that as “the obvious” is that the argument is still open giving the data that is available. I did not read it as contradictory.
    the “obvious” refers to the conclusion that “the science is settled ” mantra is wrong. It is not settled. There should be a debate at least! One that is based on data, not on personalities and insults. Which is why it is interesting that AGW proponents do not want to debate.

  39. Craigo says:

    AGW is “Al Goreical”

  40. Malcolm says:

    These comments should be presented to the high profile global warming hearing.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25376454-7583,00.html

    This reposte to climate alarmism is probably the best I’ve read.

  41. Christopher Hanley says:

    As a non-scientist, I find Christopher Monckton’s incisive summaries indispensable.

    I just wish he wouldn’t use such lurid graphics.

  42. Jack Hughes says:

    “The world’s biggest cargo carriers, including Maersk and IM Skaugen, have begun talks with power companies in Britain and Europe that could see them build new fleets of tankers specially made to transport the greenhouse gas captured from clean-coal power stations.”

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6122254.ece

  43. James P says:

    If Al Gore had some real evidence (and a spine), he would welcome the debate. That he doesn’t tells you all you need to know…

  44. Kaboom says:

    At least with Chris Monckton, everything he says is “Peer reviewed”!

  45. Stefan says:

    It is not about whether global warming is perfectly right. It is about whether global warming is even half right.

  46. James P says:

    Same reason Dawkins wouldn’t debate creationists

    Always difficult when they’re not open to rational argument…

  47. John Egan says:

    Monckton is a ~snip~ – and not even an American one. The Dems have no intention of creating a political theater. There are plenty of other persons that Barton could have chosen – Americans, scientists. Stupid political move.

  48. JimB says:

    Having failed with my last predictin (Caitlin team’s rescue on Earth Day), I’ll move along to my next prediction.

    There’s lots of speculation as to when all of the facts will finally have their day in court, so to speak. I believe this will happen in the 2012 election, and will be a major plank for Republicans. Not saying that will be good or bad, just pointing out that there will be plenty of political hay to be made on this subject.

    JimB

  49. This is great triumph for Lysenko science.
    What’s next, compulsory intelligent design education in schools?

  50. Tamara says:

    One of the witnesses listed for these hearings is Dr. Jay Apt from Carnegie Mellon University. He has this to say in his testimony:
    “Removing 80% of the CO2 we emit today from electric power generation with the most cost-effective technologies we know about will cost us about 2/3 of one percent of GDP annually. That’s about what we spent on the Clean Air Act. That amount is affordable. But if we try to specify which technologies – like renewables – are the only ones that need apply and don’t allow the least expensive clean technologies to compete, these costs can grow to unaffordable levels.”
    I doubt the committee members pay much attention to anything that doesn’t come out of Al Gore’s mouth, but we should keep this in mind when they all start claiming that they had no idea their plan wouldn’t work. They know, they have some of the brightest minds in the country warning them, and we need to hold them accountable when the time comes.

  51. Arthur Glass says:

    I am reminded that the late William F. Buckley, Jr, when asked why Robert Kennedy refused to debate him, asked in response, ‘Why does baloney refuse the grinder?’

  52. Britannic no-see-um says:

    Morano should consider interviewing Monckton on the implications of this bottling out and publicising a YouTube posting of it. It might be a surprise hit like Daniel Hannon’s recent EU opportunity to confront Gordon Brown. Reaching the green-indoctrinated younger generation audience with hard truths is important.

  53. Steven Hill says:

    The whole meeting is a sham, if you live in the USA, your going to pay CO2 taxes, period! The only thing one can do is never vote for another lying democrat the rest of your life.

    ps, since both sides lie, I have no idea who you can vote for instead.

  54. Larry T says:

    If someone in Federal or State Prosecutors Offices had some guts, I think that Al Gore could be brought up on RICO charges becasue he is a undeclared lobbyist and also promotes his investment interests without declaring them. He is just a con man with a “democrat royality” pedigree.

  55. Roger Carr says:

    JohnD (23:48:03) wrote: “CO2wards”
    Wish I’d thought of that, John.

  56. jon says:

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel.

  57. Smokey says:

    Monckton has demolished the pro-AGW debaters in every debate he’s been in. That’s why they’re barring him — his presence would result in another loss for Al Gore. Thus the underhanded tactics.

  58. Robinson says:

    This isn’t news to me. Gore doesn’t allow journalists in to watch his presentations (presumably because the pesky critters are capable of asking difficult questions, although from my experience with the MSM, I don’t think they can be bothered to do so very often).

    How is this allowed to happen? Freedom of speech I suppose – freedom to spin and a credulous and lazy media.

  59. Ric Werme says:

    I don’t often allow myself to sink to such poor taste, but the first thought that came to my mind was “What’s the doughboy afraid of?”

    Aside to non-US readers, non ice cream eaters, and fans of underdogs, see http://www.rezoom.com/money/from-the-vault/read/5679/

    Further aside to non-US readers, see http://www.pillsbury.com/aall/default.aspx

  60. H.R. says:

    @Flanagan (23:41:26) :

    “How do you want someone who once said that “heterosexual AIDS transmission is a myth” and that “all people infected by VIH should be quarantined for life, this is until they actually die of it” to participate a democratic debate?

    I really understand the point of view of the organizers, there.”

    Nice ad hom there, Flanagan. A fine example of the technique and a shining example for others. Read and learn, WUWT visitors.

  61. Scott B says:

    I’ll never understand how this is an issue that became politisized. It’s got to the point where Dems are acting like Repubs about the whole issue. Calling people deniers and shutting down any debate is no different than the other side calling people unpatriotic and stopping debate on the Iraq war.

    @ Matt Bennett (02:06:50): You do both evolutionary and climate science a huge disservice by comparing the two.

  62. Robert Bateman says:

    Scenes we’d like to see:
    Monckton: I move we adjourn to the nearest beach on the Atlantic. Mr. Gore will demonstrate the dramatic rise in the ocean to the members of this Committee.
    Mr. Gore: Can I be excused, I have pressing matters?

  63. Ric Werme says:

    Ema Nymton (02:28:36) :

    [hmm...I think all your posts will likely be deleted given this pattern of profanity] ~ charles the moderator

    Ema’s name backward is NotMyName. Sounds like a loser to me.

  64. M White says:

    So this is what was ment by the phrase “the debate is over”

  65. Arthur Glass says:

    “The world’s biggest cargo carriers, including Maersk and IM Skaugen, have begun talks with power companies in Britain and Europe that could see them build new fleets of tankers specially made to transport the greenhouse gas captured from clean-coal power stations.”

    Has anyone told Somali pirates about this?

  66. James P says:

    There are plenty of other persons that Barton could have chosen – Americans, scientists

    I’ll ignore the xenophobia, but he only needs to know more science than Gore, which probably isn’t too difficult.

    Reminds me of the two hikers woken up by a bear. One puts on his track shoes, while the other looks bemused, pointing out that neither of them can outrun a bear. “I don’t have to” says his friend, “I just need to outrun you”.

  67. Robert Bateman says:

    Gore Error #5: Snows of Kilimanjaro melting due to global warming.
    The Snows are melting most likely due to deforestation, the very same thing that undid the Mayans, not CO2 levels. The Mayans were making Lime Slime for their shiny temples. Gore is making Green Slime for his shiny temple.

  68. Owen Hughes says:

    I found Monckton’s letter (thanks for posting the link here) to be an invaluable ready reference of excellent arguments and facts. It’s a shame that Waxman and his people are so clueless and rude -if they had not been ready to deal with the sparks at a Gore-Monckton debate, they should have never extended an invitation. It is a little late and weak to argue “Oh, Monckton has no standing, he’s not an American.” In any case, all we ever hear from the AGW folks is how the crisis transcends all national boundaries. So this is a transparently cowardly act. But it’s their party, they can hide if they want to.

    Meanwhile the facts will keep coming out. Thanks in large measure to the quality of the science and debate at sites like WUTW. Well done.

  69. Jack Green says:

    Ask Mr Gore how did he travel to this meeting and what’s the carbon footprint? What car did he drive to the airport? Where were you and what were you doing on Earth day? Mr Gore are emitting more GHG’s then this entire panel today because you are fat? Why are you so fat if it’s so harmful to the enviroment? Mr Gore are you aware that this panel would not allow a joint appearance with Mr Monckton or was it you who made this demand? Why are you a skeptic? When he says he’s not ask him what direct proof does he have that CO2 is harmful to humans? How many people have died due to Global Warming? Name them? If so can you direct us to the data that documents all of these deaths? What’s the difference between weather and climate?

  70. George Antunes says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/24/climate-heavy-hitters-address-house-committee/

    The Repubs have forced them to include Newt Gingrich in the discussion…Guess that’s the mystery guest.

  71. John Galt says:

    This country gets more and more banana republic each day. The policy has already been decided. Facts be damned. This is all a dog and pony show and gives some Congressmen a chance to get their names in the paper and boost their ‘green creds’.

  72. George Antunes says:

    I especially liked this line…”He was added to the lineup late Thursday at the request of Republicans.”

    Yea…After the Dems refused to let Mockton testify! Democracy at its finest!

  73. Matt says:

    The claim is in fact entirely false. If you look at the published notice of the hearing in the April 21st issue of CQToday (page 19) you find the following witness list:

    Al Gore
    John Warner
    Ian Bowles
    Dave McCurdy
    Alan Reuther
    Dan Sperling
    David Friedman
    David Gardiner
    Jeff Genzer
    Andrew Delaski
    Bill Becker
    Tia Nelson
    Carl Royal
    Jon Anda
    David Doniger
    Patricia Mulroy

    In other words, Monckton was not scheduled to testify today, let alone on the Gore panel (Which is just Gore and former Senator John Warner (R-VA))

    REPLY: That list could have been edited just hours ago, when did you acquire it? If you can show that it was originally published this way, then your point would be true. – Anthony
    The story is a complete lie.

  74. Gentry says:

    Wildfire rages months later – a look into the future of the US

    Firemen from several local engine companies were hit with a $16,235.86 carbon tax in lieu of last November’s wildfires that jumped containment lines and spread to an adjacent wooded area. The fire then proceeded to burn 1,500 acres emitting an estimated 1,200 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas that is blamed for the global warming phenomenon. 2015 recently tied 2008 as the 13th warmest year on record and the 20 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995, scientists say.

    A clause in a congressional bill passed last year on carbon taxation makes firefighters liable for any emissions from wildfires that jump containment lines. Despite a bitter debate the bill passed by a narrow margin, pushed through by democratic lawmakers and signed into law by President Obama.

    “We have to take the threat of global warming seriously by reducing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere, this includes emissions from natural sources, such as fires and animals”, said an anonymous White House source.

    This bill was praised as a victory for environmentalists that lobbied heavily for its passage. Members of the Sierra Club and WWF International were on hand when President Obama signed the bill into law.

    “No cost is too expensive to protect the Earth from the dangers of greenhouse gasses”, said one Sierra Club member.

    Unfortunately, for local firefighters, this leaves them with a hefty bill.

    “Most of our men and women are volunteer firefighters. They can’t afford this”, said Ron Estak, Assistant Chief. He continued, “We’re risking our lives out there and this is the thanks we get from our government.”

    Ron Estak is not alone in his opinion. Local residents have also voiced displeasure with the recently enacted tax.

    One resident griped, “I can’t believe they’re going after the firemen!”

    Another citizen on foot, asking to remain anonymous, disliked all aspects of the recently passed act.

    “I’m walking to work because I can’t afford to drive my car anymore. I’ve been cited for having a charcoal grill without a permit and last week I had to buy a $25 carbon credit to have a campfire for the kids to roast marshmallows. Now this with the firemen.”

    Despite being started by arsonists, the wildfire was the states’ biggest in 55 years when a blaze torched 37,000 acres. Scientists expect an increase in large wildfires as greenhouse gasses heat the planet, making weather, such as droughts and floods, more extreme.

    An official inquiry into the blaze is due out later this week to determine whether or not global warming had a hand in making the wildfire more extreme. Residents that lost their homes to the blaze are eagerly awaiting the release of the investigation. Under a 2009 law citizens adversely affected by global warming can sue the government for up to $75,000/year and many residents are hoping to cash in.

    In 2013 a major hurricane along the East Coast cost the government $210 billion in lawsuits after a landmark study concluded that the increase in Atlantic hurricane frequency since 1995 is linked to global warming.

  75. Pamela Gray says:

    Heavens, I think I’ll go partyless from now on.

  76. starzmom says:

    I just spoke with the young lady at the other end of the phone at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. She does not know why Monckton was cancelled, she is getting a lot of calls on this, and does not know why her superiors will not give her information that she can pass to callers. I’m offended that he was cancelled, but I am more offended that the committee can’t be honest about it!

  77. cbullitt says:

    [snip]

  78. Tod Wiley says:

    John Egan (04:16:38) :

    Monckton is a ~snip~ – and not even an American one. The Dems have no intention of creating a political theater. There are plenty of other persons that Barton could have chosen – Americans, scientists. Stupid political move.

    Al Gore is political theater!

  79. kim says:

    Gore is ‘peddling a false prospectus’. [snip - not for us to judge]
    ======================================

  80. Tom in Florida says:

    Let’s not let the Republican members of the committee off the hook. They should voir dire Al Gore. Let him state, for the record, his qualifications as an expert witness. He should state all his papers, publications and research findings that have been peer reviewed (which of course he can’t).

  81. Squidly says:

    Meanwhile, back at home (Nashville), the Gore Effect is in full swing. Uncle Al leaves town and we immediately go into a heatwave ;-) (mid 80’s all weekend) … Great Golf Weather!!!

  82. kim says:

    Well, I just had a little bit of gratifying fun. Marc Morano lists a phone number to call Congress about this matter, 202-225-2927, so I did. I got a woman who responded that she was connected with the hearing, she put me on hold for less than a minute, then listened to me briefly tell her that Al Gore is not allowed to promote his businesses in England because a judge has called it ‘peddling a false prospectus’. She then thanked me for letting ‘us’ know.

    I’m simply amazed.
    ===================================

  83. JLKrueger says:

    The Skeptic side doesn’t need Moncton to destroy Gore…heck my 17 year old daughter could demolish that pompus coward. (He said proudly, having deprogrammed and retaught her well. Undoing that crap the kids are being spoonfed in school is tough! But it was worth it.)

    Their avoidance of debate is just further proof of the weakness of their position.

  84. starzmom says:

    I forgot to add the committee’s phone number if anyone else wants to call. It’s 202-225-2927.

  85. BobW in NC says:

    Don’t have time to cover all the responses to this post unforunately. Congress’ refusal to allow Lord Monckton to testify is maddening but expected. As pointed out so well by other responders, it is not the slightest surprise. In fact, it only confirms the intentional or unintentional bias that is so blatently obvious in AGW supporters.

    My request: Could/would Lord Monckton provide WUWT with a post of the presentation he was going to give before congress, complete with any illustrations? IEven better, a link to a You Tube interview, if there is one. I bet it would be solid, and perhaps useful to many of us who not scientifically grounded in climate science.

    Thanks!

  86. Ed Fix says:

    Al Gore will never debate a real scientist. He has a high enough profile he doesn’t have to. He has never seen a science course he couldn’t run away from. In college, he majored in his native language (never finished) before he finally got a fluff degree in Government. After the Army, he went to divinity school (never finished) and law school (never finished), before claiming his birthright to become a lawmaker.

    He got fired up about global warming during a class in college where he and some classmates did a project involving pollution and greenhouse gasses. After he ascended to the AGW prophet-hood, he learned the professor from that class actually doubts the greenhouse gas hypothesis of global warming. So, naturally, Mr. Gore started asking (thereby suggesting it was true) whether the old man had gone senile.

    No, Mr. Gore, the one with the calcified brain is you.

  87. george h says:

    Some posters imply that in the interest fairness and of open scientific debate, that congressional democrats allow Monckton to testify. Please realize folks, the issue is not about science; it has never been. It’s about leftist political action which advances the socialist agenda and ever-advancing control over our economic lives.

    Climate change legislation is just one front of a war being waged (successfully) against our political and economic liberties. Creating univeral healthcare, affordable housing (we know where that led us), re-regulating the financial system by seizing control over banks, creating class warfare / envy, are others. Silencing and marginalizing the opposition is nothing new. It is right out of the statist-democrat playbook.

  88. BarryW says:

    Since when has a Congressional hearing been anything but the equivalent of a show trial, regardless of who’s running it? Politicians work back from their agendas to determine the facts that fit the agenda, not the other way around.

  89. Just Want Truth... says:

    a left complicit media will NEVER report this

  90. The PROPHETis not allowed to debate with anyone from outside the nether world..
    He won’ t debate as far as he is profoundly and deeply involved in the business of carbon credits and carbon shares, and because his most sacred gospels back those silly, low frequency generators, landscape destroyers windmill’s industries.

  91. Just Want Truth... says:

    this is political oppression—the Founding Fathers of the United States hated this sort of thing!

    John Addams would verbally crush this publicly!!

  92. Douglas DC says:

    Why not just subject Monckton to the rack or iron maiden-then that would be example to all who doubt the profit,er Prophet…
    This is getting very like the days of the Borgia Popes….

  93. Mike Lallatin says:

    I’ve heard Al Gore called “Dung Chow Zhing” (sp?), translated to me as “Pompous Windbag.” I prefer “Dai Zaw,” which I translate as “Great ‘Ziploc-after-walkies’.” There are many Zaws of many capacities out there with open mouths.

  94. Just Want Truth... says:

    of course if James Hansen had flown in to town they’d sit him center stage and turn the heat up to make everyone in the room feel global warming

  95. Dave the Denier says:

    Watching Gore live @ C-Span…

    He is going down his laundry list of dangers. Arctic ice could disappear in as little as five years…2009 saw the 8th 10-year flood in Fargo, ND, since the 80’s….1/3 of bird species are endangered….Australia experiencing a 1,000-year drought…..U.S. twice as many wildfires so far in 2009 compared with same period last year…Dr. Greg Holland says we have had 400-500% increase in Cat 5 hurricanes over last ten years…Now.Is.The.Time.To.Act!

    Geez, no wonder they have former Senator John Warner sitting beside him instead of Lord Monckton.

  96. Mike Bryant says:

    I called the young lady, she said they already heard from Lord Monckton on March 25… it is listed… I told her I’d like to hear from him again and she said she would let someone know…
    Mike

  97. BernardP says:

    It seems that only litigation will be able to slow down, or possibly stop, the cap-and-trade juggernaut. The whole exercise is borderline-rigged like a Venezuelan election.

    The question about Obama and AGW is: naive or dishonest?

  98. Tom in Florida says:

    starzmom (06:55:24) : “I forgot to add the committee’s phone number if anyone else wants to call. It’s 202-225-2927.”

    I just called this number and asked the receptionist if Al Gore was testifying as an expert witness or a lobbyist. She said she believed it was as an expert witness. I then asked what credentials he had that made him an expert witness and she transferred me to another person. I asked that person (a man) if Al Gore was testifying as an expert witness or as a lobbyist and he said he didn’t understand the question. So I asked was Al Gore’s testimony being taken as expert or just opinion. He than stated that Al Gore was testifying as a former Vice President. I then asked what his scientific credentials were and he said that all witnesses submitted a current CV to the committee and the committee was aware of his credentials. He asked me if I had a statement to make and I responded that Al Gore’s credentials should be declared by the committee. I also asked why Lord Moncton wasn’t there and was told “he already testified”. I assume that meant sometime in the past not earlier today. I asked if it was true that he was cancelled and the man said “good day” and hung up. My impression was that he was getting frustrated by a lot of similar calls.

    If you haven’t done so already, may I suggest readers call the number.

  99. We must recognize the high nobility shown by Lord Monckton to willfully dive into the deepest and most low realms as to reach and face the base prophet of the dark and dare to invite this most excecrable creature, the denier of all laws of creation, to nothing less but to debate with him and try to convince this horrendous being, the utterer of lies, or making him change his mind, if any.
    The planets and stars which circle the sky above, and which are suspected of controlling the affairs of men and beasts down here on the earth, will surely either appease the ferocity of the evil ones or make them disappear so to let the good people who peacefully inhabit this world live accordingly.

  100. Scott B says:

    BernardP (07:54:10) : The question about Obama and AGW is: naive or dishonest?

    IMO, naive. Along with most politicians’ views on both sides. I’m sure most of them haven’t really tried to understand the science (or lack there of) of the AGW theory. Many wouldn’t be able to even if they tried. I’m sure I have a much more solid scientific and mathmatical background than them and I have problems with many of the details. They are either biased to believe in one side or the other based on their other beliefs and/or are following the party line.

  101. Neven says:

    One would think that the people running this blog by now would know that Monckton is not the best partner to have in the fight against AGW alarmism. Not every enemy of your enemy is your friend, and this particular enemy of your enemy has lost it quite some time ago. Come on, this blog is moving in the right direction, don’t spoil it all by mentioning Monckton in your articles. That man has made a fool himself on numerous accounts. A lying fool, at that.

    As for Morano: If it would be in Morano’s interest to support AGW he’d be offering his services to Al Gore faster than lightning. He’s in it for the political and/or financial gain, just like Gore. Please go beyond being Morano’s errand boy. You’ve got something going here.

  102. Wouldn´t it be that you will suffer the consequences in your pockets and in your way of life, this issue is really funny. Have you noticed how convinced he is, how absolutely he feels he says the truth?, and how he scares the kids and the fools?
    Really funny this prophet of doom.

  103. Ron de Haan says:

    John Egan (04:16:38) :

    “Monckton is a ~snip~ – and not even an American one. The Dems have no intention of creating a political theater. There are plenty of other persons that Barton could have chosen – Americans, scientists. Stupid political move”.

    John Egan,
    You must be living in the smallest Global Village on earth, not to be found on any map. And you must be living in a hen house.
    I come to this conclusion because you talk and think like a chicken.

    The AGW doctrine is part of a masterplan to create a Global Empire.
    Control over CO2 not only provides control over emission, but also over people, governments and countries.

    This Global Empire will not know real democracy and people will be treated like assets instead of individuals.

    If any debate has to be done, we send in the best people.

    Moncton happens to be one of the best.

    You think it was a strategic mistake not to send in an American?

    We all know Gore does not debate!

    Gore is known for his presentations and monologues, wining about people attacking him. He called the Marc Moreno Website Climate Depot the Gettysburg of AGW.

    The US Government can decide what they want but they are not representing the wishes of the majority of Americans.

    Everybody knows what happens if the will of the American people is not respected, especially if they must pay the bill for it.

    1. Opposition is build, Tea Parties or whatever.
    2. People go to the streets and into the courts.
    3. The politicians involved will not be elected the next time.

    According to Moncton the USA is the most resilient democracy in the world.
    He also said that we can’t afford to lose the US Leadership and her strong economy in the world.

    What more can you ask for?
    Moncton is more American than many of the cheats and free loaders that currently populate the US Senate and the Congress, including Al Gore.

    It could be that we lose a battle, but we have not lost the war.

  104. AnonyMoose says:

    It’s odd that I just heard about this on the news at the top of the hour, but there is very little detected yet by Google News. How did it pop up on the radio already? It is on Canada Free Press… but in a story which is also by Morano (and perhaps typed as a breaking news story, including a typo in Climate Depot). There is a headline on Drudge Report… linked to the Climate Depot story. Yup, Climate Depot has an exclusive interview, but the mass media isn’t reporting much on the alteration of the committee schedule.

  105. Ted Clayton says:

    Though, like Anthony Watts, we may be out of the political loop (and consider ourselves fortunate!), politics-as-usual surely is in play.

    There has already been an Obama administration pattern of ‘humiliating’ Great Britain. When Prime Minister Brown visited Washington D.C., our President presented his counterpart with the formal gift of a stack of DVDs … judged to be the sort of present that Junior High School Best Friends might exchange on a weekly basis, and setting off a fuming fuss in the British media & circles. etc.

    So now Lord Monckton has supposedly been allowed to salivate all down the front of his shirt, thinking he will get the opportunity to eat Al Gore alive in a pivotal climate debate telecast to the whole world from the very Capitol Chambers of the United States of America … whereupon all will know the naked truth about the ruse of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Doubtful, on all counts. Gore doesn’t debate anyone on climate, and everyone knows that. Least of all a figure like Monckton, with his William F. Buckley, Jr.-esque meat-grinder reputation to maintain. [Arthur Glass (04:33:07)] ;-)

    So firstly, to abuse the perspicuous Clauswitz, politics remains but war by other means.

    Secondly, there are the standing (glaring) indications that Mr. Gore’s reticence to debate climate themes isn’t a reflection of the indefensibility of his positions, but arises instead from his lack of the necessary personal characteristics to make a good debater. This is just a weak area for him.

    After all, we all know that a good debater can & will argue either side of any dispute – and often prevail over a stronger case! Al Gore was never a psychologically & emotionally agile & clever figure in debate … and appears to be getting worse with age.

    That’s why Gore doesn’t debate climate – because he’s an abysmal debater.

    And thirdly, Al Gore’s poor debating skills & traits may explain the AGW’s community’s costly & irrational decision & attempt to deny that there is any debate, at all, to declare the topic closed, and to simply use the Internet to “broadcast” (unidirectional) their arguments as classic (antiquated) mid-20th C. nationalistic propaganda (which even they understand to be a weakness). The root explanation could be merely that the community is emulating & affirming their leader (in his constitutional weaknesses).

    ‘What’s up with that’ – the Monckton drama – is mainly that the U.S. & UK appear to be playing good-cop, bad-cop in hopes to help the UK government successful execute policies upon their populace to which it is strongly opposed.

    So when will we see real debate? When the audience (the public) begins to laugh openly, stand up from their seats and walk out on the performance. When will that be? The first best-chance will be late this summer, if the Arctic ice fails to melt sufficiently.

  106. Smokey says:

    Neven,

    You’re suffering from psychological projection. Marc Morano clearly believes in what he’s saying. He is very passionate about it. What proof do you have that he’s only doing it for the money? And how much is he being paid? Do you even know?

    OTOH, Al Gore fits what you’re trying to sell perfectly. His net worth was given as $1 – $5 million when he ran for president. Now it greatly exceeds $100 million.

    And the reason that Christopher Monckton was not allowed to debate is obvious: he has won every global warming debate he’s been in. Gore is terrified of debating him.

    Finally, since when does the opposition get the right to select their opponent’s debate team?

  107. WakeUpMaggy says:

    Made it to the Drudge Report at least: Dems Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing…
    link to Climate Depot.
    Better than no mention of it in the news.

  108. UK Sceptic says:

    Method: Those who can, do. Those who can’t avoid potentially embarassing confrontations with those who can.

    Conclusion: Warmists are on the run.

  109. stun says:

    “He has never seen a science course he couldn’t run away from. In college, he majored in his native language ”

    Wow, I didn’t realise that you can do a degree in bol**cks over there!

  110. D. Patterson says:

    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND , 2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515, (202) 225-2927. The committee receptionist, a member of the Democrat staff, confirmed Lord Monckton was invited to participate in today’s hearing until the invitation was canceled. When asked why the invitation was canceled, she said the committee had already heard Lord Monckton’s March 25th testimony and did not need to hear the same testimony today. She then transferred the call to the committee’s minority staff (Republicans). The Republican minority staff member confirmed the cancellation of the invitation. He then noted how the Democrats on the committee were not canceling the invitations for their own witnesses who had also testified before.

  111. ICECAP said “FLOOD THE OFFICE WITH PHONE CALLS EARLY TODAY (202) 225-2927 INSISTING THEY ALLOW MONCKTON TO TESTIFY”

  112. cotwome says:

    Why is Al Gore even testifying? Honorary Degrees aside, he only has a Bachelor of Arts degree. Shouldn’t the government be listening to scientists, on scientific matters? Who do they listen to for legal matters, Graduates of ‘General Studies’?

  113. ralph ellis says:

    .

    Quote:
    “Congress’ refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said…
    End quote

    Yup, that’s nub of the matter. They are running scared because so much political capital, image and reputation has been invested in Global Warming, that its failure may precipitate the downfall of governments.

    Tony Blair just about hung on to power with his ‘dodgy dossier’ over Iraq, but if governments across the world are all faced with ‘dodgy climate dossiers’, there could be political carnage. The common people are not likely to be happy with being taxed to the hilt over a scientific lie.

    .

  114. BobW in NC (07:00:53) : Could/would Lord Monckton provide WUWT with a post of the presentation he was going to give before congress, complete with any illustrations? Even better, a link to a You Tube interview…
    I second that

    Neven (08:39:11) : Come on, this blog is moving in the right direction, don’t spoil it all by mentioning Monckton in your articles… As for Morano: Please go beyond being Morano’s errand boy. You’ve got something going here.

    Can someone please tell me the name of this particular tactic?

  115. ralph ellis says:

    .
    >>Being the great lawyer that he is, I’m sure Mr Obama
    >>can see a slight deviation from the intentions of the founding fathers

    Nope – he backed the wrong horse, and has little room for maneuver.

    He is currently drafting a new speech that explains that endorsing Global Warming does not mean that he really believes it to be happening. In fact, the policy of endorsing Global Warming clearly demonstrates his firm belief that we are heading for a mini-Ice Age and we should increase CO2 production to counteract it.

    He’s a politician, he has every base covered.

    .

  116. Ray says:

    What the [self-snip] is wrong with these people? Science MUST ALWAYS be opened for debate.

    Since Gore is no scientist and obviously only there to force political decisions, of course there won’t be debates with him.

    What we have here is a Dictatorship.

  117. Ray says:

    How many congress-person are scientifically litterate? On this panel, my guess is a big “0”.

    Talking science with them could actually be worse than when I explain what a light-year and the speed of light is to my 7 years old daughter (at least she is interested to know more about real science than those idiots).

  118. Peter Plail says:

    The comment made by Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck (07:55:47) on he New Zealand sacking thread :

    “… the news from Poland:

    Polish Academy of Sciences Questions Gore’s Man-Made Global Warming Theory
    By: Kevin Mooney
    Examiner Investigative Reporter
    04/24/09 9:18 AM
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html

    is well worth following as it is a remarkable statement from a such an important organisation. I am unable to find any reference to the statement on the Academy website but have e-mailed them to see if they can point me at the source, and give the context in which the statement was made.

  119. D. Patterson says:

    Someone else just telephoned the committee and asked Is there anybody there who knows why Lord Monckton’s invitation was canceled only after his flight from Britain?

    The receptionist responded by saying, “No, nobody here knows.”

  120. David Segesta says:

    Steven Hill (04:46:02) :
    “The whole meeting is a sham, if you live in the USA, your going to pay CO2 taxes, period! The only thing one can do is never vote for another lying democrat the rest of your life.

    ps, since both sides lie, I have no idea who you can vote for instead.”

    I gave up on the Ds and Rs years ago. Why not try the Libertarians or the Constitution party? If you believe in freedom and the US constitution they are the only choices. Can they get elected? Only if you vote for them.

    Sorry for the political post, but AGW cannot keep from being political.

  121. lkempf says:

    Smokey,

    I have to disagree with you: Gore is not terrified he is merely sticking to the plan. An open dialogue is antithetical to his ends, which is to make money. I don’t believe for one minute that many of these guys actualy believe what they’re peddling.

    They have a monetary gain in sight and they are heavily invested in seeing it come to fruition. On a moral and ethical basis, yes they are, by the very definition: cowards.

    Tactically, in order to achieve their objective they are just being smart. Remember the Nazis? Propaganda does not work instep with open dialogue and honest debate.

  122. D. Patterson says:

    The hearing is currently broadcasting live on C-Span Channel 1 Livestream. Al Gore acted indignant because he was asked whether or not one of his companies is going to profit from the Climate control legislation. He attempted to deflect the question by claiming 100% of the profits he receives is being donated to a non-profit organization.

  123. Mike Bryant says:

    Lucy Skywalker (09:30:25) :
    Neven (08:39:11) : Come on, this blog is moving in the right direction, don’t spoil it all by mentioning Monckton in your articles… As for Morano: Please go beyond being Morano’s errand boy. You’ve got something going here.

    “Can someone please tell me the name of this particular tactic?”

    It’s called “Divide and Conquer”.

  124. Joseph says:

    Gore has posted his testimony at his website.

    http://blog.algore.com/2009/04/testimony.html

    You have to read this, this guy is nuts.
    He is claiming a potential 40 foot rise in sea level due to melting ice.
    He claims the ocean has acidified to the extent it is now corrosive.
    He even pulls an Obama and blames the flooding in Fargo on AGW.

    Lies, lies and more damn lies!

    No wonder he didn’t want Moncton there.

  125. Sam the Skeptic says:

    flanagan (23:41:26)
    “How do you want someone who once said that “heterosexual AIDS transmission is a myth” and that “all people infected by VIH should be quarantined for life, this is until they actually die of it” to participate a democratic debate?”

    An argument Monckton made in 1987. The following year a certain James Hansen made certain predictions regarding temperature trends over the next few decades.
    Some time later, Monckton said, “the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn’t work.”
    20 years later we are still waiting for Hansen to admit that his predictions were b**lsh*t.
    As a British politician said some years ago, “When the facts change I change my opinion; what do you do?”

  126. Ron de Haan says:

    As Ayn Rand wrote, “It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

    Read about “The Charlotte Tea Party Speech”
    by John Lewis (April 20, 2009)

    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5505

  127. Ray says:

    Joseph (10:16:50) :

    Gore has posted his testimony at his website.
    ————
    Sorry, but I can’t get myself to read it or look at him on C-span. I might barf on my keyboard and won’t be able to write comments on WUWT’s excellent blog.

  128. AKD says:

    Arthur Glass (05:25:39) :

    “The world’s biggest cargo carriers, including Maersk and IM Skaugen, have begun talks with power companies in Britain and Europe that could see them build new fleets of tankers specially made to transport the greenhouse gas captured from clean-coal power stations.”

    Has anyone told Somali pirates about this?

    Fits perfectly with Pirate-Climate Theory. By cooling the world through carbon sequestration, we will inevitably bring about dramatic rises in the pirate population.

  129. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Flanagan (23:41:26) :

    How do you want someone who once said that “heterosexual AIDS transmission is a myth” and that “all people infected by VIH should be quarantined for life, this is until they actually die of it” to participate a democratic debate?

    I really understand the point of view of the organizers, there. “””

    You need to do some further research there Flanagan. Seems to me that in the US when there were outbreaks of tuberculosis; a highly person to person contagion; that in fact ANYONE infected, was quarantined until they were cured (or died). That was done to protect the uninfected.
    AIDS was the first disease to be attacked by quarantining those who AREN’T infected. It’s not rocket science; communicable diseases are spread by the behavior of people who have those diseases; not by the unsuspecting behavior of people who don’t have them.
    And one particular group of victims happens to have devised the most effective way of transmitting HIV; second only to a blood transfusion. I recommend you study how cholera attacks the human body, and the particular organ it attacks. HIV does the very same thing.

    But Monckton was responding to the best science information he was able to learn. Whether that was correct or not does not mean he was wrong to raise the issue.

    One could reasonably ask why a Brish member of the nobility should be addressing the US Congress; he is not and never has been a member of the British Parliament; so is is acting as a concerned private UK citizen of some not inconsiderable repute; and in the case of climate science; he is far better informed than Al Gore ever could be, although he would not claim to be a climate scientist.

    But the ad hominem attack is such a weak statagem Flanagan; can’t you come up with a more germane reason for the Congress to snub Christopher Monckton’s freely offered advice.

  130. Lex (23:37:30) :

    Last year, on his tour through the Netherlands and meeting some high ranking Dutch officials, like ministers, the skeptics were not allowed to the debate with Al Gore.
    Needless to say that the number of skeptists has risen very significantly since then.
    Actually it was even worse.

    Before he was going to give a speech to those Bobo’s (Dutch slang for high ranking Dutch officials, like ministers) he was also going to give a speech to his footsoldiers (Students), but he got a bit delayed, left the soldiers for what they where and only lectured those who paid for it.

  131. Fuelmaker says:

    Does Monckton ever mention that CO2 in 1940 was higher than it is now? I had never even heard of this until I listened to a talk of Plimer’s on youtube. I thought that statement was so over the top that I almost dismissed his whole talk.

    However, all I had to do was Google “CO2 history” and the scales fell from my eyes. Why don’t we bury AGW once and for all with this? The manipulation of the “pre-industrial” CO2 level to be a constant is just a bald faced lie. I am truly disgusted that so many have been so dishonest. The “environmentalists” (I like the environment too, btw) are so intent on controlling everyone else, they don’t even care if they have to lie for the “greater good”.

    Non technical people just glaze over when I try to explain all the complexities of climate, especially when it is not the fashionable opinion. However, everyone understands a lie. Kerry almost won by characterizing WMD statements as lies. Let’s get the word out that the CO2 record was fabricated just like the famous “hockey stick” temperature curve.

    Why can’t this be the “smoking gun” that exposes the AGW hoax?

  132. Currently “serious” people are those who do not even consider other peoples opinions but their own, and their own onanistic thoughts are so hardly defended that they are consequently deprived of those human features called humor and well being. As they also consider themselves the wisest and, last but not least, the most beautiful of the human kind, they are prone to fall into depression more easily….So let’s wait.

  133. Mark T says:

    Joseph (10:16:50) :

    He claims the ocean has acidified to the extent it is now corrosive.

    Really? I mean, I can at least understand using “acidification” in spite of the fact that what is really happening is the oceans are becoming less basic, i.e., they are becoming more neutral, but to say they are corrosive is a simple lie. If anything, the oceans are becoming less caustic, not corrosive.

    Mark

  134. Ray says:

    To understand and avoid where this is all going, people should read this: “Fascist Ecology:
    The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents” at http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

    History is repeating itself!

  135. Ron de Haan says:

    As the democrats have put their heads in a bucket, the world is cooling and the number of skeptics is rising.

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=27&c=1

    People also get immune to alarmist media reporting.

    Mocking the “Greens” in style, read No Consensus, much Propaganda
    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/4/24_No_Consensus,_Much_Propaganda.html

  136. Ray says:

    Not sure if that comment went through the first time…

    Looks like history is repeating itself. This is a very interesting historical perpective of this whole situation: “Fascist Ecology:
    The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents” at http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

  137. Jim Papsdorf says:

    I posted this story to Drudge last night and I now see that it is there-maybe my posting did it ?….. Posting to Drudge can be very effective as the web site gets over 22 million hits per day !!!!! This site is one hell of a mote in the eye of the MSM>

  138. Tim Clark says:

    Ray (09:47:15) :
    How many congress-person are scientifically litterate? On this panel, my guess is a big “0″.

    Or economically, intuitively, sexually…ad infiniti

  139. Ray says:

    Mark T (10:59:43) :

    I am in no way defending this idiot, buit of course he is using the word corrosion to insight images of stutural failure or whaever in people’s minds.

    Corrosivity can also be done at pH higher than 7.0. Def. Corrosion: The breaking down or destruction of a material, especially a metal, through chemical reactions.

    A good example is that of aluminum with Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). It is quite violent actually!

  140. Ron de Haan says:

    Fuelmaker (10:51:40) :

    “Does Monckton ever mention that CO2 in 1940 was higher than it is now? I had never even heard of this until I listened to a talk of Plimer’s on youtube. I thought that statement was so over the top that I almost dismissed his whole talk.

    However, all I had to do was Google “CO2 history” and the scales fell from my eyes. Why don’t we bury AGW once and for all with this? The manipulation of the “pre-industrial” CO2 level to be a constant is just a bald faced lie. I am truly disgusted that so many have been so dishonest. The “environmentalists” (I like the environment too, btw) are so intent on controlling everyone else, they don’t even care if they have to lie for the “greater good”.

    Non technical people just glaze over when I try to explain all the complexities of climate, especially when it is not the fashionable opinion. However, everyone understands a lie. Kerry almost won by characterizing WMD statements as lies. Let’s get the word out that the CO2 record was fabricated just like the famous “hockey stick” temperature curve.

    Why can’t this be the “smoking gun” that exposes the AGW hoax?”

    Fuelmaker,

    The CO2 levels during the beginning of WOII are subject to discussion.

    Moncton has directed his efforts at debunking the IPCC reports.

    He performed this job with a 100% kill rate, demolishing all the conclusions and disclosing the underlying (pseudo)science.

    What more do you want?

  141. Ron de Haan says:

    Robert van der Veeke (10:47:51) :

    Lex (23:37:30) :

    “Last year, on his tour through the Netherlands and meeting some high ranking Dutch officials, like ministers, the skeptics were not allowed to the debate with Al Gore.
    Needless to say that the number of skeptists has risen very significantly since then.
    Actually it was even worse.

    Before he was going to give a speech to those Bobo’s (Dutch slang for high ranking Dutch officials, like ministers) he was also going to give a speech to his footsoldiers (Students), but he got a bit delayed, left the soldiers for what they where and only lectured those who paid for it”.

    “Needless to say that the number of skeptists has risen very significantly since then.”

    Robert,

    Would you be so kind to tell me where the Dutch Skeptics can be found!

    If there is one country in the world marching blindly into the green paradise without a single act of protest, it is The Netherlands.

    Where were the protests when the Dutch Government lauched a plan to protect the Dutch coast from an expected sea level rise of 7.5 meters?

    Where were the protests when Balkenende asked Obama to adapt to the Kyoto Protocol and take serious action reducing CO2 emissions?

    People happily participate in the Climate Street Contest and they happilly watch Green Dream Television.

    It’s time somebody wakes them up before they turn their country into the worlds biggest swimming pool.

  142. Joseph (10:16:50) :

    He claims the ocean has acidified to the extent it is now corrosive.

    LOL, OMG!…Then he is contradicting himself again. If there is so much CO2 in sea water as to acidify it so much then there is nothing in the atmosphere!!, so there is no Global Warming!!
    Hurrah!!

  143. Indiana Bones says:

    Being a constituent of Congressman Waxman, Chair of this Committee – I just wrote a scathing (!) letter to him. I have read much of Monckton’s Report and it is excellent. In fact this one Report contains, in my humble, all the detail necessary to fully disclose the skeptical AGW position.

    This committee now ruled by Dems is acting out of extreme cowardice. There can be no expectation of truthful findings if the Committee Chair refuses the testimony of competent witnesses. A joke. A clown jape. Hardly worthy of the invective “a kangaroo court!” I am ashamed to be from California.

  144. D. Patterson says:

    Waxman ridiculed Gingrich for disputing Gore’s claims about Antarctica. Gingrich cited scientific reports showing Antarctic ice is increasing or stable, not decreasing as claimed by Gore. Waxman’s blustering comments confused ice extent in West Antarctica versus East Antarctica with his comments about “sinking” of those places instead of ice extent and/or volume. Clearly, Waxman failed to demonstrate an understanding and grasp of even the most fundamental scientific facts about Antarctic ice extent known to children in elementary schools.

  145. HE, instead, is greatly acidic and acidifying all the world, from the start. Some baking soda will make it…Oh, but it has CO2 in it also!! (H2CO3)

  146. hunter says:

    Fuelmaker,
    Your post is interesting. Can you please be more specific in your search directions?

  147. Henry Galt says:

    stun (09:14:41) :

    “He has never seen a science course he couldn’t run away from. In college, he majored in his native language ”

    “Wow, I didn’t realise that you can do a degree in bol**cks over there!”

    Funniest thing I heard all week. And I really needed cheering up. Thank you stun, Anthony and all here whose good nature in the face of deception and deceit is a credit to you all. Still laughing.

  148. Ray says:

    They are so desperate right now that they are really going at it with the insults.

    Next step for Gore is to drop on the floor, cry like a baby and kick his feet…

  149. Mike Bryant says:

    “Indiana Bones (11:46:49) :
    …This committee now ruled by Dems is acting out of extreme cowardice. There can be no expectation of truthful findings if the Committee Chair refuses the testimony of competent witnesses. A joke. A clown jape. Hardly worthy of the invective “a kangaroo court!” I am ashamed to be from California.”

    How can Waxman wax so eloquently against obvious scientific facts? Is he even approaching the mindset of the Ministry of Truth? Will this comedy of errors be allowed to continue?

    Three questions… my answers…

    1) The kindest answer… He is deluded.
    2) Yes, he is.
    3) Sadly, yes it will.

  150. Ray says:

    Of course Gore is so in a hurry to pass this bill, he wants to get all the credits for the temperature decrease that has been happening naturally… but in 5 to 10 years it will be so obvious that it was natural… but he will claim otherwise.

  151. @ Ron de Haan (11:42:23) :

    The Dutch Flight-tax to force people to fly less is a shining example in how to turn your average population in to skeptics.

  152. D. Patterson says:

    The gist of Gore’s response to the Congresswoman was basically, “How dare you ask me if I am profiting from my testimony. I give it all to charity.” You have to wonder how he managed to increase his net worth from a million or two in 2000 to a reported 100 million, now giving it all to a charitable non-profit? Isn’t Gore a recipient of charity disbursements?

  153. Joseph says:

    Well, since the Dems blocked Monckton from testifying, the GOP replaced him with Newt Gingrich. His testimony is posted here:

    http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4169/Default.aspx

    I think he did a good job.

  154. Fuelmaker says:

    hunter-

    I am hot on the trail of this and would welcome anything else you can find. The only detailed paper I have seen so far is this one.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

    I find it fascinating that the ambitious alarmists have gotten away with the manipulation of CO2 data. Of course it was harder to cover up the historical temperature manipulation and they got caught pretty quickly by McIntyre. CO2 is a lot harder to find good short term proxies for, so they thought they were safe.

    I find it especially offensive that the statisticians (that call themselves scientists) ignore the real science starting from 150 years before that show elevational, diurnal, seasonal, decadal, and regional CO2 variations. It is not just expeditious t to splice ice core data with 500 year averaging and a low bias to modern intruments over a Hawaiin volcano, while ignoring previous intrument and wet chemistry data, it is FRAUD!!!!

  155. page48 says:

    This has just got to be the tackiest Congress of all time – they should have had the decency to rescind the invitation before Monckton left home! How embarrassing for the US!!!!!!!!!

  156. Frank K. says:

    Slightly OT: Here come the AGW lawsuits. The town of Kivalina in Alaska is attempting to sue the entire US energy industry for “damages” caused by global warming. Here is a copy of the complaint:

    http://www.adn.com/static/adn/pdfs/Kivalina%20Complaint%20-%20Final.pdf

    Read the whole thing. If this lawsuit is successful, it will really signal the beginning of the end of the US as we know it today…very frightening stuff.

    I hope all of the AGW types out there realize the damage they are doing to society in the name of Global Warming. The political theater on Capitol Hill is just the tip of the iceberg…

  157. The “smoking gun” that exposes the AGW hoax…is FUN
    And..not surprisingly they don’ t like it.

  158. Jim says:

    The Polish Academy of Science is suggesting a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding climate. It is becoming skeptical of AGW theory…

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html

    Jim

  159. Dave in CA says:

    Interesting Fuelmaker

    I found this googling CO2 History

    http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/AIGnewsNov06.pdf

    Page 7 is interesting.

  160. Frank K. says:

    BTW there’s even a comment in the Kivalina complaint about us skeptics (p 47):

    “191. The tactics employed in this campaign include the funding and use of “global warming skeptics,” i.e. professional scientific “experts” (many of whom are not atmospheric scientists) who regularly publish their marginal views expressing doubts about numerous aspects of climate change science in places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page but rarely, if ever, in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The skeptics are frequently quoted in newspapers such as the Washington Times and are offered up to numerous mainstream, unsuspecting, news outlets as scientific experts in order to sow doubt among the public about global warming.”

  161. Antonio San says:

    Here is what the Canadian national newspaper Globe and Mail editor video picks contain for today’s edition:
    “Gore’s impassioned climate plea
    AP Video – Friday, April 24, 2009 at 1:52 EDT

    Former U.S. Vice-President urged lawmakers to overcome partisan differences and take action to reduce greenhouse gases, calling the climate issue the most important ever put before Congress”

    The AGW propaganda is alive and well at Thomson-Reuters-CTVGlobemedia…

  162. Old PI says:

    May AlGore be reduced to living in a single-wide mobile home without cable TV and air conditioning – in Florida. There should be consequences to fraud, and Algore is the champion of global warming fraud. The Environmental Protection Agency listing carbon dioxide as a pollutant is equally as fraudulent, and should be dealt with in the same way. In a lawsuit, both sides are capable of presenting all the evidence they need to convince a jury. I’d LOVE to see several tens of tons of evidence presented that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, and those pushing it are frauds. I don’t think anything less than a court of law would actually allow ALL the evidence to be presented. It’s obvious the Democratic Party isn’t interested.

  163. D. King says:

    JohnD (23:48:03) :

    CO2wards

    Timeless!

  164. WakeUpMaggy says:

    Joseph (12:44:09) :Well, since the Dems blocked Monckton from testifying, the GOP replaced him with Newt Gingrich. His testimony is posted here:
    http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4169/Default.aspx

    Newt certainly did his homework. I was impressed with his take on the complexity of the whole energy situation, even without sounding like a skeptic. Without the emotional theatrics of Gore and his ilk, he probably put everyone to sleep with his sound thinking.

  165. D. Patterson says:

    The AGW lobby is funded by a network of funds and individuals having a net worth of more than 90 billion dollars. Many of the shell and front organizations funded by these political networks hire activists to blog and protest in favor of Gore and the AGW fraud. See craigslist for lucrative offers of paid employment to serve as green activists, writers, bloggers, filmmakers, and lobbyists. Scientific findings contrary to the message of Global Warming and Climate Change is quite unwelcome with these employers.

  166. Jerry Haney says:

    After reading Newt’s testimony, I was left with a distinct impression that he also does not understand the issues of AGW. I wish Anthony would make an attempt to contact Fox News and ask for an on air discussion of how CO2 is not the cause of global warming. At least a few million more people will hear the truth. Most people have no idea that a carbon tax is about to be laid upon them and what it will do to their lives.

    Maybe Fox would give Monckton some decent air time if Anthony talked to them.

  167. George E. Smith says:

    Rude; and crude; thaqt is how I would characterize the behavior of the US government in this instance; and I deliberately include both the Congress and the White House, because you can bet that President Obama put the Congress up to this.
    The President has said he will not compromise on the CO2 tax; that after all is how he plans to fund his entire Marxist totalitarian agenda.

    I watched some of these hearings over lunch on that boring network that shows these brainiacs droning on reading from a prepared script. I caught Walter Reuther’s dynastivc brat whining on behalf of the United Auto Workers, to get the taxpayers to bail out their golden parachute retirement club. He followed somebody from the auto dealers association; again whining because nobody is buying the junque cars Detroit builds.
    Both of these guys were kissing the feet of the Congress, mentioning global warming at every available opportunity.

    This has nothing to do with science; or the environment, or the Constitutional authorities of either the Congress or the white House.

    Every day we hear pleas for “Bipartisanship”; what a joke; what an insult to the American Citizenry.
    A congress that will allow No Republican to introduce ANY legislation; that will not allow a Republican to present a witness to the Congress.
    Don’t bother me; my mind is made up; we are going to tax the people to pay for our slushfund largesse; and we aren’t going to let any facts get in the way of that program.

    But the real Criminals, are the public media, who will let these buffoons in Washington do this to the American people; and never call for an acocunting of their behavior.

    The United States Constitution authorizes the Congress to collect taxes (uniformly across the entire nation (not from just the rich States); and for the purpose of 1), paying the debts of the United States, and 2) to provide for the common defense and general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.]
    And not for anything else. And the “United States” is that political entity headquartered in Washington DC. it is not every tom, Dick, and Harry whose welfare is to be provided for with the taxes Congress is allowed to collect.

    Nowhere is the Congress authorized to buy up companies; fund bankrupt Union pension funds, or involve itself in any energy or environmental business..

    But let’s face it; if they will pass a multitrillion dollar unconstitutional spending spree, without ANYBODY ever reading one word of the bill; why would we expect them to let a British Viscount; with a good track record, address them on the false claims of that pied piper algore.

    If you haven’t read Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”; then you haven’t a clue what the American Electoral College has turned loose on the American People.

    George

  168. Fuelmaker says:

    Can someone please point me to a reasonable source for historical real-time CO2 concentrations? I have discovered that the E&E magazine is not so diligent. I still think that there is a pony in there somewhere. Any of the ocean records are useless for atmospheric CO2. Reading the attacks of the paper in Deltoid left me unconvinced. The major complaint was the impossibility of such large natural rises in CO2. It seems to me that undersea volcanoes could pump a whole lot of CO2 into the atmosphere while no one was looking.

  169. Now that you are entangled in this GW business. How will you disentangle the tangle?
    You are trapped in the climate cage, prisoners of Al´s will, subjected to his nightmarish allucinations, slaved by his dreams, driven by his desires…
    Drowned under his imaginary tides, dried to the bones by his fantastic droughts, torn to small pieces by his most powerful hurricanes…appalled by his gutural voice… OMG!! You are really doomed!!

  170. Fuelmaker says:

    Oh, and another thing.

    Even if the historical CO2 measurements were not directly comparable and may have been affected by local factors, I smell a big rat that ice data which has a low bias and averages over 500 years is the best that the modelers could do.

  171. Once again I’m most grateful to Anthony Watts and his hard-working team for their kindness in exposing the less than democratic tactics of the Obama Democrats. The story circulated by the indefatigable Marc Morano is – as one would expect – accurate in every particular.

    Early this week the Democrats told the Republicans they would have a “celebrity witness” for this morning’s hearing on the Waxman/Markey Bill, but they would not say who. The Republicans immediately contacted me and asked if they could tell the Dems they too were putting forward an undisclosed celebrity witness – me.

    When the Dems eventually revealed that their “celebrity” was Al Gore, the Republicans told them I was to testify at the same time. The Dems immediately refused to allow the Republicans their first choice of witness. By the time they had refused, my jet was already in the air from London and I did not get the message till I landed in the US.

    At first the Dems tried to refuse the Republicans the chance to replace me with a witness more congenial to them, but eventually – after quite a shouting-match – they agreed to let Newt Gingrich testify. The former Speaker of the House gave one of his best performances.

    I attended the session anyway, as a member of the public, and tried to shake hands with Gore when he arrived, but his cloud of staffers surrounded him and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.

    His testimony was as inaccurate as ever. He repeated many of the errors identified by the High Court in the UK. He appeared ill at ease and very tired – perhaps reflecting on the Rasmussen poll that shows a massive 13.5% swing against the bedwetters’ point of view in just one year.

    My draft testimony will be posted at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org shortly, together with a brief refutation of Gore’s latest errors.

    Finally, I have never said what one of your less polite correspondents has said I said about HIV. However, in 1987, at the request of the earliest researchers into the disease, I wrote articles in journals on both sides of the Atlantic recommending that AIDS should be treated as a notifiable disease, just like any other fatal, incurable infection. Had that standard public-health measure been taken – immediate, compulsory, permanent, but humane isolation of the then rather few carriers – many of the 25 million (UNAIDS figures) who have died and the 40 million who are currently infected and heading for death would have been spared. Sometimes, unfashionable points of view are right, and sometimes ignoring them can be a matter of life and death.

  172. Ron de Haan says:

    Robert van der Veeke (12:43:54) :

    @ Ron de Haan (11:42:23) :

    ?
    “The Dutch Flight-tax to force people to fly less is a shining example in how to turn your average population in to skeptics”.

    Yes, that could be so but it is my observation that the Dutch have become herd of sheep and hypocrites*.

    Nobody protested the flight-tax.
    The public simply traveled from airports located in Belgium and Germany.
    The only protests came from the Airport Holding and KLM, but only after they were confronted with decreasing passenger numbers.

    The current economic crises caused the flight tax to be lifted.
    (*Only because the Government is the biggest stakeholder)

    The Dutch media have been infested with “green BS Bad Science) and today it is generally accepted that WWF and Oxfam dictate the news.

    What to think about arecent weather report presented by a guy called Pit or Piet, the National Weather Anker, who stated that Global Warming was on the rise and The Netherlands experienced the hottest April in 300 years!

    These kind of lies can be told without a single protest.

  173. Tim Clark says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :
    Sometimes, unfashionable points of view are right, and sometimes ignoring them can be a matter of life and death.

    Well stated, and hereby nominated for quote of the week.

  174. Smokey says:

    Since the Congress will never apologize for its atrocious behavior toward Viscount Monckton, I apologize on their behalf. Most Americans who are aware of this situation strongly disapprove of these increasingly despicable tactics, in which the mainstream media is complicit.

    That said, I’m very appreciative of the fact that there remain ethical people in the world, who are willing to fight for honesty in the face of official mendacity.

  175. Ron de Haan says:

    Fuelmaker (13:51:51) :

    “Can someone please point me to a reasonable source for historical real-time CO2 concentrations? I have discovered that the E&E magazine is not so diligent. I still think that there is a pony in there somewhere. Any of the ocean records are useless for atmospheric CO2. Reading the attacks of the paper in Deltoid left me unconvinced. The major complaint was the impossibility of such large natural rises in CO2. It seems to me that undersea volcanoes could pump a whole lot of CO2 into the atmosphere while no one was looking.”

    Fuelmaker,

    Why don’t you take a look at the total annual CO2 flux and the human contribution to see how absurd the AGW scam really is:

    From Jan Veizer:
    “Our atmosphere contains 730 billion tons of carbon as CO2. Each year about 120billion tonnes of carbon are cycled via plants on land and 90billion tonnes via oceans. Human emissions account for about seven billion to 10billion tonnes, or less than 5 per cent, of the annual CO2 flux”.

    Read the whole story here:
    Without our atmosphere, the Earth would be a frozen ice ball. Natural greenhouse warming, due to atmospheric blanket, raises the temperature by about 33C. At least two-thirds of this warming is attributed to the greenhouse effect of water vapour.

    Water vapour, not carbon dioxide, is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Yet the models treat the global water cycle as just being there, relegating it to a passive agent in the climate system. Energy that is required to drive the water cycle and generate more water vapour must therefore come from somewhere else: the sun, man-made greenhouse gases, other factors or any combination of the above.

    Note, however, that because of the overwhelming importance of water vapour for the greenhouse effect, existing climate models are unlikely to yield a definitive answer about the role of carbon dioxide v the sun, for example, and the answer must be sought in past records.

    The past climate record does indeed resemble the trend in solar output. However, because three decades of satellite data show only limited variability, the solar output would have to be somehow amplified to explain the entire magnitude of the centennial warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that because no amplifier is known, and because the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide did increase from 280 parts per million to 370ppm, man-made greenhouse gases must be responsible for most of the energy imbalance.

    But this is an assumption, an attribution by default, not an actual empirical or experimental proof that carbon dioxide is the driver. Yet such attribution is then taken as a fact in the subsequent complex model calibrations of climate sensitivity to CO2.

    If, however, an amplifier to solar output does exist, and empirical observations detailed below argue for its existence, the need to attribute the energy input to man-made greenhouse gases would diminish accordingly. So how realistic is the basic model assumption that the tiny – biologically controlled – carbon cycle drives the climate via the passively responding huge water cycle?

    Nature tells us that it is the other way around. Surely, the blossoming of plants in the spring is the outcome, not the cause, of the warming sun and abundant rain.

    Our atmosphere contains 730 billion tons of carbon as CO2. Each year about 120billion tonnes of carbon are cycled via plants on land and 90billion tonnes via oceans. Human emissions account for about seven billion to 10billion tonnes, or less than 5 per cent, of the annual CO2 flux.

    From the point of view of interaction of the water and carbon cycles it is important to realise that for every unit of CO2 sequestered by a plant from the atmosphere almost 1000 units of water must be lifted from the roots to the leaf canopy and eventually evaporated back into the air.

    The required huge energy source is the sun. Solar energy drives the water cycle, generating a warmer and wetter climate while invigorating the biological carbon cycle. The sun also warms the oceans that emit their CO2.

    Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate, as demonstrated by past records where temperature changes precede changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and fluxes: ice cores, the 1991 Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines or seasonal oscillations are instructive examples.

    But what might be the complementary source of energy that could account for the disputed 1.6W/m2?

    Clouds are a mirror that reflects solar radiation back into space. The amount of solar energy reflected by the Earth is about 77W/m2 and the difference between cloudless and cloudy skies is about 28W/m2. Therefore a change of just a few per cent in cloudiness easily can account for the disputed energy discrepancy.

    Clouds are an integral part of the sun-driven water cycle; however, formation of water droplets requires seeding and this is where solar amplification likely comes into play. Empirical and experimental results suggest that cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere may generate such initial seeds, particularly over the oceans. While the actual mechanisms are still debated, the correlations between cloudiness and cosmic ray flux already have been published.

    The amplifying connection to the sun comes via its electromagnetic envelope, called the heliosphere, and a similar envelope around the Earth, the magnetosphere. These act as shields that screen the lethal cosmic rays from reaching our planet. A less active sun is not only colder but its heliospheric envelope shrinks, allowing more cosmic rays to reach our atmosphere and seed more clouds, and vice versa. Indeed, satellite data for the past decade shows a 25per cent shrinking of the heliosphere that is coincident with the halt, or even decline, in planetary temperature since 1998: a trend at odds with the ever rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    We also have direct evidence for the above scenario. Cosmic rays, when hitting the atmosphere, generate a cascade of cosmogenic nuclides that then rain down to the Earth’s surface and can be measured in ice, trees, rocks and minerals. Such records over the past 10,000 years correlate well with the highly variable climate, while the contemporary concentrations of CO2, measured in ice cores, are flat around the low pre-industrial levels of 280ppm with no resemblance to climate trends.

    These centennial to millennial correlations, coupled with direct observations of coincidence of cloudiness with cosmic rays and temperature in central Europe since 1978, argue that the sun and its amplifying mechanism must play a leading role in climate control even if the cosmic ray signal proves no more than an indirect measure of solar variability.

    The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outlined scenarios. Our pollution abatement and energy diversification goals could then be formulated, and likely implemented, with less pain.

    Jan Veizer is a distinguished university professor of geology (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and has researched the use of chemical and isotopic techniques in determining Earth’s climatic history.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25376454-7583,00.html

  176. rephelan says:

    Fuelmaker (10:51:40) and Dave in CA (13:04:58)

    I’ve just read that Ernst-Georg Beck paper and am stunned. It needs far more commentary and analysis than I can give it, but there should be enough talented and knowledgeable people here to give it the sort of critique that the two Jeffs and Roman M. gave to Steig.

    Beck’s full paper can be located here:

    http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

    and his full web page with lots of fascinating stuff can be found here:

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

    Analysis anyone?

  177. Jeff Alberts says:

    Frank K. (13:06:52) :

    BTW there’s even a comment in the Kivalina complaint about us skeptics (p 47):

    “191. The tactics employed in this campaign include the funding and use of “global warming skeptics,

    Hmm, where’s my funding check??

  178. Jeff Alberts says:

    I mean what other blogs have a Viscount posting on
    them?!? WUWT rocks!!

  179. Smokey says:

    Fuelmaker (13:51:51) : “Can someone please point me to a reasonable source for historical real-time CO2 concentrations?”

    I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but here are a few possibilities:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    [On click5, click in the image to expand it.]

    Also, notice that in the first link that CO2 emissions varied widely over the years, but the Mauna Loa record shows a very steady rise. This indicates that human emissions of this beneficial trace gas are only a tiny part of the increase, most of which must then be entirely natural.

  180. Stephen Brown says:

    It is nice to see the world’s greatest “democracy” in action.

    If this had happened in a Third World country, the Western governments would have been up in arms, if not taking up arms!

    Come on, USA!! You are the bastion of freedom (or so you claim). Be free. Make YOUR representatives listen to both sides of the story before they impose an even greater tax burden upon you.

    Look what has befallen your cousins in the UK with the latest socialist, warmist budget!

  181. Smokey says:

    rephelan (14:50:35),

    Dr. Beck’s work has been discussed on this site before. You can probably find links that answer your questions in the comments: click

    I tend to accept Beck’s analysis for one main reason: he is always willing to answer emailed questions and explain his results. He is completely open and accommodating. Dr. Beck’s transparency is a refreshing contrast to the UN/IPCC, Gore, Hansen and the rest of the people who constantly hide out and refuse to disclose their data.

  182. George E. Smith says:

    “”” jon (05:03:17) :

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel. “”

    So name any three people you know about or have read about who were harmed by tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline.

    Do you have any idea how many people have been born, and lived full healthy lives on this planet during the time that leaded gas was in use in automobiles.
    You might also name some of the benefits that we obtained by replacing tetra ethyl lead with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether; and just what percentage of California water wells were permanently poisoned by the stuff we put in gasoline to replace the ethyl.

    California’s EPA has just mandated a 10% reduction in carbon content of gasoline. Since ethanol addition is just the same as adding water; that leaves gasoline consisting of multiples of (CH2) groups.
    How are you going to reduce the carbon content at all let alone by 10% ?

    Maybe California’s EPA has discovered a new periodic table of the elements.

    George

  183. Ron de Haan says:

    Jerry Haney (13:48:12) :

    “After reading Newt’s testimony, I was left with a distinct impression that he also does not understand the issues of AGW. I wish Anthony would make an attempt to contact Fox News and ask for an on air discussion of how CO2 is not the cause of global warming. At least a few million more people will hear the truth. Most people have no idea that a carbon tax is about to be laid upon them and what it will do to their lives.

    Maybe Fox would give Monckton some decent air time if Anthony talked to them”.

    Jerry,
    Brilliant plan, just put Moncton at Fox news and let him tell the story in front of the public. It’s make or break policy now.

  184. D. Patterson says:

    [quote]Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :
    The Dems immediately refused to allow the Republicans their first choice of witness. By the time they had refused, my jet was already in the air from London and I did not get the message till I landed in the US.[/quote]

    Thank you for your efforts and contributions. There are many of us who deeply appreciate them.

  185. Robinson says:

    Can I quote the late, great, Bertrand Russell?

    “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

    Bertrand must have been thinking of Gore!

  186. rephelan says:

    Smokey (15:25:03) :

    Smokey, you are really, really good. Maybe next time I’ll just shoot you an e-mail and ask if something has already been discussed. I’ll spend a little time over on that link. Thanks.

  187. henry says:

    “191. The tactics employed in this campaign include the funding and use of “global warming skeptics,” i.e. professional scientific “experts” (many of whom are not atmospheric scientists)…”

    Including such professional scientific “experts” as Al Gore…

    “…who regularly publish their marginal views expressing doubts about numerous aspects of climate change science in places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page…”

    While the “experts” put their marginal views in the IPCC reports, or badly written and acted movies.

    “…but rarely, if ever, in peer-reviewed scientific journals…”

    And when the “experts” publish in peer reviewed journals, they rarely (if ever) post their data.

    “…The skeptics are frequently quoted in newspapers such as the Washington Times…”

    While the “experts” are called before House and Senate commitees.

    “…and are offered up to numerous mainstream, unsuspecting, news outlets as scientific experts in order to sow doubt among the public about global warming.”

    Here, we see again and again, the “experts” views offered to the world as the only truth. After all, it was that great, professional scientific “expert”, Al Gore, who said “The debate is over”.

    He sure proved that today.

  188. Ron de Haan says:

    George E. Smith (15:34:46) :

    “”” jon (05:03:17) :

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel. “”

    So name any three people you know about or have read about who were harmed by tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline.

    Do you have any idea how many people have been born, and lived full healthy lives on this planet during the time that leaded gas was in use in automobiles.
    You might also name some of the benefits that we obtained by replacing tetra ethyl lead with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether; and just what percentage of California water wells were permanently poisoned by the stuff we put in gasoline to replace the ethyl.

    California’s EPA has just mandated a 10% reduction in carbon content of gasoline. Since ethanol addition is just the same as adding water; that leaves gasoline consisting of multiples of (CH2) groups.
    How are you going to reduce the carbon content at all let alone by 10% ?

    Maybe California’s EPA has discovered a new periodic table of the elements”.

    George,
    Ethanol is a nightmare (as is bio diesel)

    In Europe, E85 (gasoline mixed with 85% ethanol) is offered at the fueling stations.

    Disadvantages:
    1. Almost 20% less milage per gallon = Fraud
    2. Water in the fuel tank: reduced reliability and frozen fuel lines when it gets cold
    3. Low flash point of ethanol is dangerous (a small spark during a refueling operation
    caused by static electricity could ignite the fumes. Fuel Tank design and fueling systems are not adapted to overcome this increased risk.
    Look at youtube to see cars burst into flames at the fuel station.
    4. Exhaust emissions from ethanol fueled cars contain carcinogenic particles.

    Disadvantages of the manufacturing chain of ethanol:
    1. It takes 10 grams of fossil fuels to produce 1 gram of food/bio fuel
    This means that the CO2 balance is negative from the beginning.
    2. It takes about 1000 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
    3. It would take the entire agricultural capacity of the USA to replace the current
    use of gasoline.

    So, what are we going to eat?
    And what will happen if we lose a harvest?
    And what happens to the hungry people who only have a single dollar a day to spend on food?

    I think ethanol is not a good idea.

    Bio Diesel destroys engines because algae grow in the tank.

    As all beautiful Green Dreams, they look nice on paper but in the real world they kill people.

    That only leaves me with the opportunity to tank the the genius for his idea to put food in a car tank.

    Thank you very much.

  189. Gary DeBois says:

    Ron de Haan (15:35:21) :

    Jerry Haney (13:48:12) :

    “After reading Newt’s testimony, I was left with a distinct impression that he also does not understand the issues of AGW. I wish Anthony would make an attempt to contact Fox News and ask for an on air discussion of how CO2 is not the cause of global warming. At least a few million more people will hear the truth. Most people have no idea that a carbon tax is about to be laid upon them and what it will do to their lives.

    Maybe Fox would give Monckton some decent air time if Anthony talked to them”.

    Jerry,
    Brilliant plan, just put Moncton at Fox news and let him tell the story in front of the public. It’s make or break policy now.

    I don’t know if either of you have been keeping up with Fox’s perspective on Global Warming but they are very much with the MSM on this. Don’t look for any fair and balanced time on this issue.

  190. George E. Smith says:

    Well Presidnet Obama first snubs our British allies by deliberately tossing Sir Winston Churchill out of the oval office; no doubt to make room for a bust of Saul Alinski; the President’s guiding light.
    Then an equally crude and rude Congress summarily dismisses the former Science Advisor to Dame Margaret Thatcher; Britain’s Iron lady.

    How sad for us to be thus reminded of past Better days, when the free world was led by the partnership of President Ronald Reagan, and Prime Minister Thatcher.

    Lord Monckton’s rude dismissal today demonstrates that we now have “the Ugly American right here at home.

    My thanks to Viscount Monckton for speaking to us today; so we may know just what went down on this day of shame in Washington DC.

    George

  191. Tom in Texas says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    Thank you sir. I have read your 40 page letter to the Congressional Committee. Now if we could only get some of them to read it.

  192. WestHoustonGeo says:

    Just listened to the Viscount on Michael Savage’s show. Savage was going to do three minutes, but kept the man on for over an hour. Monckton was superbly eloquent with the facts at his fingertips. I’ve read his stuff, but never heard him speak before. The dems were right to fear him!

    I heard a quote from Wm F. Buckly that applies here, which I will paraphrase: “Why does Al Gore fear Monckton?….Why does bologna fear the grinder?”:

  193. rephelan says:

    Smokey:

    All the JPL/NASA links in that thread come back with an error 404 or the following message:

    The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
    Please contact the website administrator.

    The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes.

    Error Occurred While Processing Request
    Element BODYID is undefined in REQUEST.

    Resources:
    Enable Robust Exception Information to provide greater detail about the source of errors. In the Administrator, click Debugging & Logging > Debug Output Settings, and select the Robust Exception Information option.
    Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
    Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem.

    Browser Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0)
    Remote Address 216.153.153.42
    Referrer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
    Date/Time 24-Apr-09 04:58 PM

    All the other links from that thread seem to work fine. Hmmmmph.

  194. Sandw15 says:

    “I mean what other blogs have a Viscount posting on
    them?!? WUWT rocks!!”

    agreed!

    To Monckton of Brenchley
    I just heard you on The Savage Nation. Good Work! It makes me feel good to hear on the radio some of the things I’ve been telling my friends about this “debate” for the last 10 or so years. Keep it up!

  195. Ron de Haan says:

    Stephen Brown (15:14:37) :

    “It is nice to see the world’s greatest “democracy” in action.

    If this had happened in a Third World country, the Western governments would have been up in arms, if not taking up arms!

    Come on, USA!! You are the bastion of freedom (or so you claim). Be free. Make YOUR representatives listen to both sides of the story before they impose an even greater tax burden upon you.

    Look what has befallen your cousins in the UK with the latest socialist, warmist budget!”

    Nice rethoric Stephen, but it’s the people that have to guard the State and not the other way around.

    The British Parliament and the House of Lords failed the people and if the American citizens don’t guard their Senate and their Congress, they end up with the same shit as the Brits, or even worse.

    I think however that the opposition in the Senate and the Congress against Cap&Trade or EPA regulations via the Clean Air and the Clean Water Act is more substantial.

    I am convinced that the hoax is running on it’s last leggs.

  196. Ron de Haan says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    Thank you very much for your relentless efforts and your posting here at WUWT.

  197. AKD says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    Sir,

    Thank you for your noble effort to bring reason to the US legislature (perhaps a lost cause…). I hope you will find the trip across the Atlantic not wasted and many an ear open to your thoughts. Perhaps you can demand offsets for your flight from the Democratic members of Congress?

  198. Mike Bryant says:

    I wonder if Glen Beck would interview Lord Monckton? Would love to hear AND see him in action!

  199. RoyfOMR says:

    To Monckton of Brenchley

    Thank you Sir

  200. Ron de Haan says:

    Smokey (14:34:45) :

    “Since the Congress will never apologize for its atrocious behavior toward Viscount Monckton, I apologize on their behalf. Most Americans who are aware of this situation strongly disapprove of these increasingly despicable tactics, in which the mainstream media is complicit.

    That said, I’m very appreciative of the fact that there remain ethical people in the world, who are willing to fight for honesty in the face of official mendacity”.

    Smokey,

    Although I resent the concept of providing an apology for matters beyond once influence, in this I fully underwrite your gallant gesture.
    What has happened today is unbelievable.
    Shame on those responsible for this debacle of obstruction of truth.

    It’s great to interact with truely sincere people that maintain such high moral standards.

    I am proud of you.

  201. Bart Nielsen says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    On behalf of the many Americans who do not support the actions of our current Congress and President, please accept our apologies at the rude treatment dealt to you today. A grateful nation gives you our thanks.

  202. Sandw15 says:

    Jerry Haney (13:48:12) :
    “After reading Newt’s testimony, I was left with a distinct impression that he also does not understand the issues of AGW.”

    Newt is a brilliant politician and historian. He’s not a scientist. When George W. rolled on the issue, (of course he was just trying to make “nice” with dems) he cut the legs out from under any Republican who didn’t agree with AGW. Don’t expect Newt to try to repair that blunder. A Republican president, ostensibly the leader of the party at the time, conceded the issue. What I suspect is this; Newt is trying to argue his case the best he can based on W’s poorly considered precedent. He’s on a political tight rope with this issue. Don’t bust his chops on the details.

  203. philincalifornia says:

    So a former Presidential candidate of the United States is too scared to not only not debate an individual, but to not even allow the guy to speak in the same forum – on HIS, Gore’s, chosen career subject. How embarrassing.

    WTF do they think this does for them in the court of public opinion ?? I’m e-mailing this joke to everyone I know, as well as posting it on any other website I happen to frequent.

    I’d initiate a pass-on-to-just-10-friends chain letter-type e-mail, but then I’d be accused of starting a Ponzi scheme. Ha ha ha ha.

    This act of cowardice could even bite Obama in the ass, let alone his five level down peons.

    On the other hand, and no disrespect to the great Lord Monckton, but Gore would have a hard time debating my 13 year old son on the evidence for CO2’s role in climate change.

  204. Ron de Haan says:

    Not entirely off topic.
    Obama’s recent hand reaching to Cuba and his visit to South America where he offered the friendship of the USA, shook the hand of Chavez and discussed the Global Warming issue has resulted in an unexpected declaration which will hurt tremendously, spreading the wealth in optima forma:

    The Declaration of Cumaná: Capitalism ‘threatens life on the planet’
    By various
    April 24, 2009

    We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the Draft Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:

    – The Declaration does not provide answers to the Global Economic Crisis, even though this crisis constitutes the greatest challenge faced by humanity in the last decades and is the most serious threat of the current times to the welfare of our peoples.

    – The Declaration unfairly excludes Cuba, without mentioning the consensus in the region condemning the blockade and isolation to which the people and the government of Cuba have incessantly been exposed in a criminal manner.

    For this reason, we, the member countries of ALBA believe that there is no consensus for the adoption of this draft declaration because of the reasons above stated, and accordingly, we propose to hold a thorough debate on the following topics:

    1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.

    2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life on the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.

    3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system. A system based on:
    Advertising

    – solidarity and complementarity, not competition;
    – a system in harmony with our mother earth and not plundering of human resources;
    – a system of cultural diversity and not cultural destruction and imposition of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries;
    – a system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist policies and wars;
    – in summary, a system that recovers the human condition of our societies and peoples and does not reduce them to mere consumers or merchandise.

    4. As a concrete expression of the new reality of the continent, we, Caribbean and Latin American countries, have commenced to build our own institutionalization, an institutionalization that is based on a common history dating back to our independence revolution and constitutes a concrete tool for deepening the social, economic and cultural transformation processes that will consolidate our full sovereignty.

    ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe or UNASUR, mentioning merely the most recently created, are solidarity-based mechanisms of unity created in the midst of such transformations with the obvious intention of boosting the efforts of our peoples to attain their own freedom. To face the serious effects of the global economic crisis, we, the ALBA-TCP countries, have adopted innovative and transforming measures that seek real alternatives to the inadequate international economic order, not to boost their failed institutions. Thus, we have implemented a Regional Clearance Unitary System, the SUCRE, which includes a Common Unit of Account, a Clearance Chamber and a Single Reserve System. Similarly, we have encouraged the constitution of grand-national companies to satisfy the essential needs of our peoples and establish fair and complementary trade mechanisms that leave behind the absurd logic of unbridled competition.

    5. We question the G20 for having tripled the resources of the International Monetary Fund when the real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies.

    6. The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial scheme should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that will meet in the United Nations Conference on the International Financial Crisis to be held on June 1-3 to propose the creation of a new international economic order.

    7. As for climate change, developed countries are in an environmental debt to the world because they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750. Developed countries should pay off their debt to humankind and the planet; they should provide significant resources to a fund so that developing countries can embark upon a growth model which does not repeat the serious impacts of the capitalist industrialization.

    8. Solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises should be comprehensive and interdependent. We cannot solve a problem by creating new ones in fundamental areas for life. For instance, the widespread use of agricultural fuels has an adverse effect on food prices and the use of essential resources, such as water, land and forests.

    9. We condemn the discrimination against migrants in any of its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we request the United States government an urgent reform of its migration policies in order to stop deportations and massive raids and allow for reunion of families. We further demand the removal of the wall that separates and divides us, instead of uniting us.

    In this regard, we petition for the abrogation of the Law of Cuban Adjustment and removal of the discriminatory, selective Dry Feet, Wet Feet policy that has claimed human losses. Bankers who stole the money and resources from our countries are the true responsible, not migrant workers. Human rights should come first, particularly human rights of the underprivileged, downtrodden sectors in our society, that is, migrants without identity papers. Free movement of people and human rights for everybody, regardless of their migration status, are a must for integration. Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries.

    10. Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access.

    11. We wish a world where all, big and small, countries have the same rights and where there is no empire. We advocate non-intervention. There is the need to strengthen, as the only legitimate means for discussion and assessment of bilateral and multilateral agendas in the hemisphere, the foundations for mutual respect between states and governments, based on the principle of non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another state, and inviolability of sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples.

    We request the new Government of the United States, the arrival of which has given rise to some expectations in the hemisphere and the world, to finish the longstanding and dire tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterized the actions of the US governments throughout history, and particularly intensified during the Administration of President George W. Bush. By the same token, we request the new Government of the United States to abandon interventionist practices, such as cover-up operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at disturbing states and governments, and funding of destabilizing groups. Building on a world where varied economic, political, social and cultural approaches are acknowledged and respected is of the essence.

    12. With regard to the U.S. blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of the latter from the Summit of the Americas, we, the member states of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, reassert the Declaration adopted by all Latin American and Caribbean countries last December 16, 2008, on the need to end the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America on Cuba, including the implementation of the so-called Helms-Burton Act. The declaration sets forth in its fundamental paragraphs the following:

    “CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to finish the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, and the statements on such blockade, which have been approved in numerous international meetings.

    “WE AFFIRM that the application of unilateral, coercive measures affecting the wellbeing of peoples and hindering integration processes is unacceptable when defending free exchange and the transparent practice of international trade.

    “WE STRONGLY REPEL the enforcement of laws and measures contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urge the Government of the United States of America to finish such enforcement.

    “WE REQUEST the Government of the United States of America to comply with the provisions set forth in 17 successive resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade on Cuba.”

    Additionally, we consider that the attempts at imposing the isolation of Cuba have failed, as nowadays Cuba forms an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region; it is a member of the Rio Group and other hemispheric organizations and mechanisms, which develops a policy of cooperation, in solidarity with the countries in the hemisphere; which promotes full integration of Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify its exclusion from the mechanism of the Summit of the Americas.

    13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.

    14. The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.

    15. We are firmly convinced that the change, where everybody repose hope, can come only from organization, mobilization and unity of our peoples.

    As the Liberator wisely said:

    Unity of our peoples is not a mere illusion of men, but an inexorable decree of destiny. — Simón Bolívar

    Via climatedepot: http://rabble.ca/news/2009/04/declaration-cuman%C3%A1-capitalism-threatens-life-planet

  205. hengav says:

    The C-Span video is truely one for the books.

    http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-17836

    It’s 2 hours and 52 minutes long and a definitive piece of AGW history. It needs to be preserved and dissected. I stopped counting at 60 the number of false statitics that VP Al brought out.

    Is Lord Monkton speaking at all tonight on any other programs?

  206. hengav says:

    Googling around whilste at minute 43 of the Cspan…

    Check this article from 1998 about recently declassified submarine data… 1998 remember.

    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102863

    Look at the path of the submarines… it appears to be called the “Gore Box”. I just about fell off my chair. Someone tell me I am wrong. Please.

  207. Brendan H says:

    “Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.”

    If this is correct, it’s probably because AGW people are steering clear of Monckton after last year’s debacle involving the American Physical Society.

    At the time, it was reported that the APS had reversed its stance on climate change. This claim was false, but it was given huge publicity across the blogosphere, including on this site, and no doubt caused a lot of embarrassment to the APS.

    But publicity is a two-edged sword, and I doubt that anyone, including Republicans, wants a repeat of that episode.

  208. hengav says:

    K it’s true. From the article
    “The Arctic Submarine Laboratory, on behalf of the Chief of Naval Operations, approved declassifying the sea-ice data within a specific swath of the Arctic Ocean, roughly between Alaska and the North Pole. The area is known as the “Gore Box” for Vice President Al Gore’s initiative to declassify Arctic military data for scientific use.”

    So all the data to 1998 was decalssified then, meaning all the data from 1998 to 2008 has now been made available too? Where?

  209. JimB says:

    “BernardP (07:54:10) :

    It seems that only litigation will be able to slow down, or possibly stop, the cap-and-trade juggernaut. The whole exercise is borderline-rigged like a Venezuelan election.

    The question about Obama and AGW is: naive or dishonest?”

    As I’ve mentioned before, AGW is a funding mechanism that is needed to support the trillions of dollars in spending that this congress and administration is going forward with. Take the funding mechanism away and you’ve got to make cuts in the “nirvana” program somewhere.

    UNLESS you come up with an alternate funding mechanism?

    JimB

  210. Big Shane says:

    Larry T (04:52:49) :

    If someone in Federal or State Prosecutors Offices had some guts, I think that Al Gore could be brought up on RICO charges becasue he is a undeclared lobbyist and also promotes his investment interests without declaring them. He is just a con man with a “democrat royality” pedigree.

    Best idea I’ve heard in awhile !

  211. Smokey says:

    Dave in CA (13:04:58) provided an interesting link that shows why the CO2=AGW gang fears and loathes geologists. From page 6 onward, there is current, up to date info — that was being discussed back in 2006. A sample:

    E-G Beck sent a last minute reference to the sampling methodology used by both Callandar and Keeling to demonstrate low CO2 atmosphere levels since the 19th Century. The technique seemed to clean the air sample by passing it through dilute sulphuric acid. Brooks Hurd, who wrote another important article on CO2 measurement offered the following opinion: “I would therefore expect that more CO2 than O2 and N2 would dissolve in the dilute cool acid, thus reducing the concentration of CO2 prior to analysis. From the data below, the solubility of CO2 is considerably higher than the solubility of air in water at 20° C. It is certainly not surprising that Reiset and Muentz reported low figures for the concentration of CO2 in their samples. Sample Preparation Issues From the Matheson Gas Products gas data books the solubilities of gases in water with the gas partial pressure equal to 1 atm:

    The solubility of CO2 in water at 293.15o K is 0.878 cm3 CO2/cm3 H2O
    The solubility of N2 at 293.15o K is 0.016 cm3 N2/cm3 H2O
    The solubility of O2 at 293.15o K is 0.031 cm3 O2/cm3 H2O
    The solubility of Air at 293.15o K is 0.0187 cm3Air/cm3 H2O

    These solubilities are based on the assumption that the particular gas is 100% of the vapour phase in contact with the water. CO2 in air would have a lower partial pressure than either O2or N2; however the solution mechanism is different for CO2 since it ionises in water. N2 and O2 dissolve as molecules. The Reiset and Muentz U tube was filled with beads to enhance gas — liquid contact. In my opinion, this would increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the dilute sulphuric acid which would reduce the CO2 concentration in the gas which they analysed.” ▲▲ [source]

    In other words, CO2 measurements by Keeling et al. were probably lower than the actual levels, for the reasons discussed above.

  212. MattB says:

    I would tend to agree that Glen Beck would love to have Viscount Monckton on with him, the only hard part would be setting asside enough time to get his points across, I mean even with an hour long show, knock off 15 minutes for commercials and platitudes that still leaves just over 1 minute for each of the 35 points :)

    Thank you for your effort to come, and feel free to post on here at anytime.

  213. Smokey says:

    I see that Brendan H. is doing his usual character assassination. He can’t dispute Monckton’s facts, so he does his typical ad hominem attack. What a guy…

    not.

  214. Roger Sowell says:

    George E. Smith (15:34:46) :

    ” “”” jon (05:03:17) :

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel. “”

    So name any three people you know about or have read about who were harmed by tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline.

    Do you have any idea how many people have been born, and lived full healthy lives on this planet during the time that leaded gas was in use in automobiles.
    You might also name some of the benefits that we obtained by replacing tetra ethyl lead with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether; and just what percentage of California water wells were permanently poisoned by the stuff we put in gasoline to replace the ethyl.

    California’s EPA has just mandated a 10% reduction in carbon content of gasoline. Since ethanol addition is just the same as adding water; that leaves gasoline consisting of multiples of (CH2) groups.
    How are you going to reduce the carbon content at all let alone by 10% ?

    Maybe California’s EPA has discovered a new periodic table of the elements.

    George”

    George, I am usually impressed because you usually write very good stuff, but the above is not up to your usual high standard.

    “People harmed by lead in gasoline” would include those who worked in the tetra-ethyl lead manufacturing plants. Also, lead in gasoline did not just disappear from the Earth, it had to end up somewhere. That somewhere included in the top layer of soil near highways, granted, in small quantities. Humans do not react well to lead ingestion, hence the ban on leaded gasoline, and leaded paints, and the strict procedures for removing leaded paint in building demolition.

    MTBE was not a replacement for TEL (tetra-ethyl lead). The TEL additive increased octane, and after its removal, for years refiners ran their catalytic reformers at higher severity to produce a blending component with higher octane. This reduced the volume of gasoline from a refinery, resulting in marginally more crude oil runs through the refineries. There was some additional octane achieved by better catalysts in a fluid catalytic processing unit, but the effect there was small.

    MTBE was added many years after the TEL ban, as a smog-reducing agent. The theory being that an oxygenated hydrocarbon increased the degree of combustion. Several other oxygenates also do this, including ethanol. You are correct that many groundwater sources are contaminated with MTBE.

    Ethanol addition to gasoline is not the same as adding water, as anyone who has had the experience of running an engine with water in the gasoline can attest. Ethanol runs pretty well in engines. Water does not.

    The California regulation for LCFS, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, requires renewable fuels. ARB’s idea is that renewable fuels do not increase the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because the corn plants (for example) convert CO2 into plant mass. The California Air Resources Board got it all wrong, though, as the energy consumed just about equals the energy produced by a burning ethanol.

    What should be required is for every step of the ethanol production chain to burn ethanol or other parts of the corn plant, and ONLY those, for their fuel or additional energy input. The ethanol refineries would go out of business in a week. Every oil refiner knows this, and has no problem with running oil refineries with only petroleum-based energy input. Many oil refineries did exactly that for decades. Oil refineries consume less than 20 percent of the crude oil raw material as energy, counting every step in the process from oil exploration, production, shipping, refining, marketing, and final product dispensing in gas stations.

    ARB points to Brazil as the model to emulate, saying Brazil produces renewable ethanol for transportation fuel and imports very little oil. Unfortunately, the USA does not have suitable geography to grow sugar cane in the quantities required, but Brazil does. We can grow corn, but corn requires huge amounts of energy to make ethanol.

    My blog entry on LCFS:

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ab-32-and-low-carbon-fuel-standard.html

    ARB is about to learn some lessons in central planning, with this LCFS and other aspects of AB 32. I sit in many of their planning and other committee meetings, and I cannot believe what passes for science. The voices of experience and reason are ignored, in favor of ivory-tower theoreticians who are hopelessly wrong. This is the state of our government today, as I have written before. The policy makers are listening to the wrong people. As a result, everyone will be paying for their mistakes.

  215. philincalifornia says:

    Smokey (19:32:23) :
    I see that Brendan H. is doing his usual character assassination. He can’t dispute Monckton’s facts, so he does his typical ad hominem attack. What a guy…

    …not.
    ————————–

    The gauntlet is down Brendan H. Can you dispute Monckton’s facts ??

  216. hengav says:

    At 1:47 of 2:52. Bleaching of the great barrier reef is due to global warming and acidification.

    While common thought it that a mass bleaching events take a decade or more to rebound, the barrier system recovered in 3 from 2006

    http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/73816/-australian-scientists-celebrate-great-barrier-reef-recovery.html

  217. Just Want Truth... says:

    Jim Papsdorf (11:22:58) :

    I bet that your email did add to the other emails they were already getting about this story. Drudge is smart in that he tries to present varied headlines to satisfy a cross section of people. He knows the poll numbers on global warming. So it only makes good business sense for him to post the story. He isn’t like CNN who will only give one side–which is causing them to drop in ratings.

    It’s a good idea for all to send stories like this from the other side of AGW to Drudge on a consistent basis and keep him abreast. Anyone can send stories to DrudgeReport.com in the

    “SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE
    [ANONYMITY GUARANTEED]”

    box in the lower part of the right column there.

    I am still looking forward to the day when a story from WattsUpWithThat is linked at Drudge!!

  218. Just Want Truth... says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    Mr. Monckton,

    I caught you on the radio today as I was driving. I was so glad! You must have reached more American citizens through that show today than you would have by speaking in Congress. I think most people were not even aware that you and Mr. Gore were scheduled to speak today in Congress. But after all the media coverage they do know now. I’d like to thank the Democrats for letting everyone know about it and for giving people a whiff of the true nature of global warming.

    The political left may have hurt itself rather than helped itself in what it did today.

  219. savethesharks says:

    Pamela Gray (06:19:32) wrote: Heavens, I think I’ll go partyless from now on.

    The “two-party” system just does not work. BOTH have betrayed us.

    Anybody up for forming the Science Party?

    Its goals would be simple: Sound policy based upon sound science.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  220. Kum Dollison says:

    Roger, in a modern plant it takes about 75,000 btus to process a bushel of corn into 2.9 gallons of ethanol. The co-product, 17 lbs of DDGS contain approx. 140,000 btus (8,400 btus/lb.)

    It would be easy to burn the ddgs for process energy. For ex. “Corn Plus,” in Winnebago, Mn uses a fluidized bed, gassification reactor process to to burn the “Syrup” – the less-valuable, thin stillage.

    The problem is: The DDGS are more valuable (for livestock feed) than the nat gas they would replace. It’s a matter of “want to,” not “can do.”

  221. Robert Bateman says:

    What a turnabout! A British Lord comes across the briny to stand up to a total charlatan, to save democracy, and gets insulted by Congress.
    Whomever compared Lord Monckton to Winston Churchill has it right. He came to stand up to tryanny.
    It is now clear what Congress’ intentions toward democracy are.
    Newt Gingrich did his best not being a scientist, but he too stood in the face of something he sees as a severe burden and travesty about to be committed upon the people of the US.
    Thank you Lord Monckton. May it go better for you in your own land than it now goes for us.
    As for the Audacious Gore War on America, the Sun will not shine for him or his temple. Next winter, no matter what happens now, by Solar Inactivity default, will bring the next level of cold. And with that increasing chill, will also see an ever more frantic agenda lashing out in sheer desperation.
    The sand in their hourglass draws down.
    Gore knows it, his body flinch at seeing Monckton was his latest chill.
    It will not be the last, nor will it be the worst.
    There’s a reason why the blizzard rains on his parade.

  222. savethesharks says:

    Ron De Haan wrote: “What more can you ask for?
    Monckton is more American than many of the cheats and free loaders that currently populate the US Senate and the Congress, including Al Gore. It could be that we lose a battle, but we have not lost the war.”

    Bravo.

  223. MattB says:

    For those that missed the Savage interview it is availabe here
    http://www.talkradionetwork.com/savagearchive
    Just hit the April 24, 2009 play button on the side (unless you are a subscriber then you can download, but then you probably already know this :) )

  224. Mike Bryant says:

    “hengav (18:59:03) :
    K it’s true. From the article
    “The Arctic Submarine Laboratory, on behalf of the Chief of Naval Operations, approved declassifying the sea-ice data within a specific swath of the Arctic Ocean, roughly between Alaska and the North Pole. The area is known as the “Gore Box” for Vice President Al Gore’s initiative to declassify Arctic military data for scientific use.”
    So all the data to 1998 was decalssified then, meaning all the data from 1998 to 2008 has now been made available too? Where?”

    Hmmm… It appears that the Catlin Arctic Survey’s planned route was right down the center of the “Gore Box”. Do you suppose their science team might have access to something we don’t? Maybe that’s the big study they will present at Copenhagen?

  225. Smokey says:

    Roger Sowell (19:41:38), maybe you should have a copy of the October 2006 issue of Consumer Reports with the cover story: “The Ethanol Myth”, to flash around when you attend those meetings. CR is PC, you know. I think I may still have my copy of that issue. If you want it, let me know.

  226. Robert Bateman says:

    Al Gore, who said “The debate is over”.

    He sure proved that today.
    He proved only that he knows how to knife the debate given the opportunity and a stacked committee. I can hear the corruption talking already:
    “Cap & Trade is good for America”.

  227. hengav says:

    Mike Bryant

    The Gore Box outline does in fact cover the Catlin Route. There should be data throughout the box. I still cannot find a single geographical article… oh crap Gore just talked about methane relases from the arctic again… describing the results of measurements up to 1998. I believe that the Catlins did alter their route to move along first year ice within the Gore Box and that it will definitely be part of their final results.

  228. Mike Bryant says:

    If the Catlin Survey science team has access to the declassified submarine ice thickness data, that helps to explain the route they chose. I always thought the route seemed odd, but now looking at the “Gore Box”, it makes sense.
    Mike

    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102863

    Someone more computer literate than I am might want to save that page…

  229. Kum Dollison says:

    1) Ron, E85, burned in a smaller, higher compression engine will give BETTER H.P/Mileage than gasoline. It’s a function of E85’s 113 Octane Rating.

    2) 240 Million cars in the U.S. are burning some amount (2% to 10% to 85%) ethanol, and NO gasline/freezing problems are being reported.

    3) Gasoline is much more Volatile than ethanol.

    4) Ethanol emits NO proven carcinogens (although, formaldehyde in large concentrations has been suspected,) however, Gasoline gives off BENZENE, a Big-Time Carcinogen.

    5) A kernel of corn is 1/3 starch, 1/3 CO2, and 1/3 proteins, nutrients. The ethanol process only uses the starch. All of the proteins, and other nutrients are preserved (plus, some extra are picked up from the yeast.) That’s why a pound of distillers grains will yield 33% more weight gain than a pound of corn – Univ. of Nebraska.

    6) We have about a Billion Acres in the U.S. that can be used for Agriculture. After allowing for distillers grains, we used about 13 Million for ethanol this year. This replaced about 7 percent of our gasoline use.

    Oh, and we took about 5 Million Acres OUT of Production this year. And, carried over a record 1.7 Billion Bushels of Corn. The current price of corn is about $0.07/lb.

  230. Just Want Truth... says:

    I suppose Mr. Gore wanted to avoid difficult morning, but still was asked a tough question :

    video :

    He used his political experience to try to turn the tables.

  231. Kum Dollison says:

    An example of “Everything you’ve read about Ethanol and Water isn’t necessarily true. Kinder Morgan looking to ship ethanol through PLANTATION PIPELINE.

    http://domesticfuel.com/2009/04/23/plantation-pipeline-expanding-to-ethanol/

    Oh, they’re ALREADY shipping ethanol through a pipeline in Florida.

  232. Kum Dollison says:

    Sorry about getting “carried away,” Anthony.

    I’ll quit, now. :)

  233. Roger Sowell says:

    Kum Dollison (20:14:59) :

    I see you are back on the ethanol bandwagon!

    Unfortunately, what you say is not only misleading, it is only a part of the story, as I stated the last time you and I discussed this on WUWT. Since then, ARB published its long
    document on energy inputs to make ethanol.

    ARB’s highly biased staff report got some things correct, aside from allowing ethanol plants to take a credit for byproducts (DGGS among them) but not doing the same for oil refineries, against which the ethanol was compared. Apples and oranges, at that point.

    The peer reviewers ripped ARB, especially on the economics (the only thing that matters), but were ignored as usual.

    Let’s see ethanol producers do exactly what I wrote above: burn only ethanol, or corn-plant residue as energy input. Oil refineries did it for decades, and still do in some areas. And oil refineries have more than 80 percent of the raw material left over for sales. Ethanol plants would have essentially none left for sales.

    Then we’ll talk.

    Until then, ethanol as fuel is nothing but a scam, perpetrated by duped public officials for the benefit of a small group of farmers and ethanol plant owners.

    Almost every piece of the California AB 32 legislation, and the forthcoming federal Global Warming legislation, are similar scams. Bad laws result from bad science.

  234. Steve Keohane says:

    I heard Lord Monckton on the radio this afternoon, on the Michael Savage show, which I don’t usually listen to. I am embarassed as an American that he was so rudely ill-recieved, and for what it is worth, offer my apologies to him. This whole situation regarding CO2 is very pathetic at best, and actually criminal. Considering the state of the world these days we have real problems to deal with, and CO2 is squandering resources best spent otherwise.

  235. Roger Sowell says:

    Smokey (20:24:04) :

    Roger Sowell (19:41:38), maybe you should have a copy of the October 2006 issue of Consumer Reports with the cover story: “The Ethanol Myth”, to flash around when you attend those meetings. CR is PC, you know. I think I may still have my copy of that issue. If you want it, let me know.

    Thanks, Smokey, but it would do no good. Everyone on the panels has already consumed the kool-aid, and they listen to nothing but their own side. The peer pressure is immense to conform, and the votes are either unanimous or sometimes one lone dissenter. The LCFS had one vote against.

    One serious problem is that the folks with the experience and knowledge are discounted as liars and biased. Any independent expert who sides with those against the AGW legislation is branded as being paid to parrot. It is absolutely a no-win situation, and I sit frustrated watching this.

    The only satisfaction is knowing what is coming: complete and utter collapse of the economy in California due to the overly-burdensome regulations. Companies are failing all over, and the last thing they need is higher prices for fuel (e.g. ethanol), vehicles (e.g. special California high-mpg vehicles), electricity (e.g. 33 percent renewables with outrageously expensive, simple gas-turbines as backup power), and a host of others. As unemployment soars (11.2 pct), tax revenues plummet ($8 billion deficit in only a few weeks), and the state cannot borrow money due to very low credit ratings, this place will crumble. (referring to California). The same will happen across the U.S., as the federal standards take effect.

    I also wonder just what is to happen with the corn producers and their mandate to meet minimum ethanol production levels each year. Do policy makers know that farmers have bad years from time to time, or is this just An Inconvenient Truth? Do they know about weather-related crop failures? What will gasoline marketers do, when the oil refineries reduce capacity to 90 percent of today, in reliance on ethanol being available for 10 percent of gasoline? Are ethanol sellers stockpiling ethanol to get us through the bad years? Somehow, I doubt it. Make it and sell it, is their modus operandi.

    By way of comparison, oil refineries are operating at the low 80’s percent of capacity at the moment. Expect several of the marginally-profitable refineries to shut down soon. They require 90 percent utilization as a minimum.

    Gasoline shortages will happen in a corn-based ethanol fuel market, mark my words. The gasoline lines of the 70’s will look like a picnic compared to what is coming.

  236. Just Want Truth... says:

    “….and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.”

    IMO Al Gore knows in himself how precarious his message is. He knows the poll numbers. He knows what Arctic ice is doing. He knows the earth is cooling. He knows he has to say over and over “We must act now” because he knows his time is short. He knows he can’t win against any opposing voice because he knows the science is not with him.

    But that’s just my opinion.

    What would he do if “The Great Global Warming Swindle” was aired nationally? Could he handle the stress? IMO, no, he couldn’t. A friendly “Hello” from Mr. Monckton makes him flinch. So, how would public opinion turned against him make him react?

  237. F. Ross says:

    Regarding the House Energy and Commerce hearings: in my opinion this committee’s liberal majority and its chair Waxman now rank on a par with the McCarthy hearings in their disregard for civility, truth, and their disservice to the republic.

    Sooner or later – let us hope the former – there will be plenty of crow to eat by those who suppress the search for truth; after the damage has been done of course.

  238. Allan M R MacRae says:

    OT but worthwhile.

    I thought I posted this somewhere on WUWT last night, but cannot find it now. I’ll just post the address and an excerpt – the Veizer article may be too long.

    ********************

    I am a fan of Dr. Jan Veizer.

    I was introduced to Jan in Ottawa by Dr. Tim Patterson, just before Jan and Nir Shaviv published their landmark 2003 paper.

    Jan showed us their data and it was most impressive.

    Best, Allan

    The Australian 23/04/09

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25376454-7583,00.html

    Here is the most controversial part of his article – and Jan is probably correct.

    Excerpt:

    If, however, an amplifier to solar output does exist, and empirical observations detailed below argue for its existence, the need to attribute the energy input to man-made greenhouse gases would diminish accordingly. So how realistic is the basic model assumption that the tiny – biologically controlled – carbon cycle drives the climate via the passively responding huge water cycle?

    Nature tells us that it is the other way around. Surely, the blossoming of plants in the spring is the outcome, not the cause, of the warming sun and abundant rain.

    Our atmosphere contains 730 billion tons of carbon as CO2. Each year about 120 billion tonnes of carbon are cycled via plants on land and 90 billion tonnes via oceans. Human emissions account for about seven billion to 10 billion tonnes, or less than 5 per cent, of the annual CO2 flux.

    From the point of view of interaction of the water and carbon cycles it is important to realise that for every unit of CO2 sequestered by a plant from the atmosphere almost 1000 units of water must be lifted from the roots to the leaf canopy and eventually evaporated back into the air.

    The required huge energy source is the sun. Solar energy drives the water cycle, generating a warmer and wetter climate while invigorating the biological carbon cycle. The sun also warms the oceans that emit their CO2.

    Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate, as demonstrated by past records where temperature changes precede changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and fluxes: ice cores, the 1991 Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines or seasonal oscillations are instructive examples.

    Regards, Allan

    P.S. Lord Chris – while you are in the USA, drop by the Met (Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art) in New York City, on the east side of Central Park – it will more than make up for any disappointments of your trip.

    And thank you for all your fine work.

  239. Kum Dollison says:

    Roger, I explained in the post above how it would be very easy to fuel the process using 60% of the ddgs coproduct. The only thing is, then you Really would be burning “food for fuel.”

    Some plants such as Poet’s Chancellors, Ia plant ARE using wood waste, and landfill gas to operate.

    And, don’t say I’m “misleading” unless you can give the numbers to back it up.

  240. ex-Lloyds says:

    Lord Monckton,

    How ironic we now import you (“no taxation without representation!”) to defend us against the greatest economic threat in generations.

    Sir, well done, and we support you in your continuing effort.

    Your US “Climate-denier” Names

  241. F.Ross says:

    Arthur Glass (04:33:07) :

    I am reminded that the late William F. Buckley, Jr, when asked why Robert Kennedy refused to debate him, asked in response, ‘Why does baloney refuse the grinder?’

    LMAO!

  242. D. King says:

    Just Want Truth… (21:17:29) :

    I suppose Mr. Gore wanted to avoid difficult morning, but still was asked a tough question

    What a noble man! He’s going to give all that money away!
    OMG…

  243. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Adolfo Giurfa (07:26:28) :

    “The PROPHET (Al Gore) is not allowed to debate with anyone from outside the nether world…”

    Spell-check please: PROPHET OR PROFIT?

    ********************************

    Question: Is the statement “The Science is Settled” an AlGoreithm?

    algorithm (āl’gə-rĭ’əm)
    A finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal, especially a mathematical rule or procedure used to compute a desired result. Algorithms are the basis for most computer programming.

    Answer: An algorithm requires logic. An AlGoreithm does not- it’s like buying a computer and then claiming you invented the Internet.

    *************************

  244. Glumzabohr says:

    Roger Sowell (22:02:30) :

    “mark my words. The gasoline lines of the 70’s will look like a picnic compared to what is coming.”

    Sounding an awful lot like the AGW doomers themselves!

  245. Roger Sowell says:

    Kum Dollison, (22:46:04) :

    You have done nothing but mislead, from my first encounter with you regarding the ethanol plant in (where was that? Minnesota?) that you crowed about using very little energy. I challenged that because I know (and every engineer knows) it is impossible, and you backed off to say you had said natural gas (which you had not said). Misleading or falsifying, is what that is. If you want credibility, as I wrote on the earlier thread, get your facts correct the first time.

    You state many un-substantiated opinions in your unsupportable zeal for ethanol-from-corn. The burden is on you to prove your opinions, not on me to disprove them. Until you do so, you are misleading or falsifying. Present your facts and evidence with citations and sources, and if they are wrong, I will call you on it. The world has grown into this mess with spending trillions on CO2-causes-global-warming because too many gullible people accepted BS information and nobody with knowledge called them on it.

    But, go ahead, if you can. This ought to be fun.

    I’ll spot you the first clue. For credibility in an argument for an energy plant (oil, bio-fuel, ethanol, or whatever), one must produce three things: 1) a material balance, 2) an energy balance, and 3) both the energy and material balances must satisfy thermodynamics. One must account for all materials entering and exiting, and all energy streams entering and exiting. Fail at any one of those three, and your argument fails. Every time, no exceptions.

    Thermodynamics prevails against hopes and dreams, every time.

  246. Brendan H says:

    Smokey: “I see that Brendan H. is doing his usual character assassination. He can’t dispute Monckton’s facts, so he does his typical ad hominem attack.”

    Now you’re trying to change the subject. Let’s check my facts.

    1. Was there a claim that the APS had “reversed its stance on climate change”? Yes

    2. Was this claim made in relation to a paper submitted by Christopher Monckton to an APS subsidiary newsletter? Yes.

    3. Was the claim true? No.

    4. Has it been withdrawn. Not apparently.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

  247. hereticfringe says:

    Lou Dobbs picked up this story on his evening session today. Glad to see that it made main stream media.

  248. Roger Sowell says:

    Glumzabohr (23:09:19) :

    “Roger Sowell (22:02:30) :

    “mark my words. The gasoline lines of the 70’s will look like a picnic compared to what is coming.”

    Sounding an awful lot like the AGW doomers themselves!”

    You are absolutely correct! Only difference is, I have the science on my side. In addition to transportation fuel shortages, the engineers predict (accurately) that high levels of renewable, intermittent power plants will result in blackouts on the power grids. Yet Global Warmists insist we build huge amounts of intermittent wind and solar power. Didn’t England’s windmills stand idle for weeks this past winter? Isn’t Germany experiencing severe grid failures where their windpower is the greatest? How’s that working out?

    Further to the blackout fiasco, has anyone considered how plug-in electric cars will be charged up during a multiple-day blackout? Even though there is plenty of generation capacity at night, that power does no good if the grid is down after ice storms, wind storms, or circuit breakers trip for other reasons. It requires a week or more to restore power to a grid after a major outage. (see, e.g. Houston TX after this past season’s hurricane).

    But, as my beloved Dad used to say, “let ‘em alone. They won’t listen, so let ‘em learn the hard way.”

    When enough people are cold and hungry and thirsty and sitting in the dark without any means of transportation because the plug-in car’s battery is dead, I think things will change. Or worse, sitting in sweltering heat with high humidity and there is no power for the air conditioner or even a fan. People in the US can tolerate such inconvenience once every few years, but when it becomes a regular occurrence, their patience grows thin.

  249. F.Ross says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (13:58:32) :

    Along with all those above who have thanked you, I also wish express the same gratitude for trying to add the voice of reason to testimony before the committee.

    The treatment you have received at the instigation of Waxman et al is beyond shameful.

  250. jeez says:

    Brendan H

    Fact: you previously claimed to be doing something important by using a lot of green energy.
    Fact: until you actually make some sacrifice, in other words more than simply being chauvinistic about the region you were probably born in, it is hard to take any of your pontification seriously.
    Fact: you simply can’t claim to be hoping to help push collective change or whatever backsliding term you used without leading by example

    Get off the grid and then we can talk. Grow your own food while you’re at it.

  251. kim says:

    Heh, California’s caught on to the corn biofuel scam. Think of the money already wasted because of mandates and subsidies, not to mention the environmental destruction and the increased food prices. It’s criminal.
    ==============================================

  252. Just Want Truth... says:

    Brendan H (23:31:53) :

    The APS statement left H2O off its list of greenhouse gases. This tips you off that it was not written by a scientist but rather a policy maker.

    Does Christopher Monckton make you as nervous as he does Al Gore?

  253. sukiho says:

    he must have a really strong argument if they wont let him say anything, perhaps you could publish it here so we can judge for ourselves? or is that not the point?

  254. Just Want Truth... says:

    “D. King (23:05:09) : What a noble man! He’s going to give all that money away!”

    He said the money is going to global warming “awareness”.

    Firstly, I don’t think anyone in the industrialized world hasn’t heard of global warming–no need for ‘awareness’.

    Secondly, since global warming is Al Gore’s career this ‘awareness’ is the same as advertising for his business. When a business advertises it is raising awareness of itself. So, Al Gore’s ‘raising awareness’ is paid for by carbon credits. He gets free advertising. The money from carbon credits helps him make money from global warming!! Such benevolence on his part to ‘donate’ that money.

    One more thing : we’ve been told, by Al Gore, that the money he made from his movie was donated to somewhere (I don’t remember where he said on 60 Minutes) and that the money he gets from this company he is a partner in is donated. But he has never been asked if he donates the money he makes from his speaking engagements. He makes it sound as though every penny he makes from global warming goes to a worthy cause.

  255. Just Want Truth... says:

    sukiho (00:59:48) :

    I think he was planning on presenting what you can see in this video :

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524&ei=YcTySb61IJX8qAOtn53yCw&q=apocalypse+no&hl=en&client=firefox-a

  256. kim says:

    sukiho, it’s available around the web. I found it again by yahooing ‘Monckton red flag house testimony’. It’s a letter he wrote to Congressmen Markey and Barton to answer some questions after his recent testimony. It’s a damning indictment of the AGW hoax.
    =================================

  257. Ron de Haan says:

    Roger Sowell (22:02:30) :

    Smokey (20:24:04) :

    “Roger Sowell (19:41:38), maybe you should have a copy of the October 2006 issue of Consumer Reports with the cover story: “The Ethanol Myth”, to flash around when you attend those meetings. CR is PC, you know. I think I may still have my copy of that issue. If you want it, let me know.

    Thanks, Smokey, but it would do no good. Everyone on the panels has already consumed the kool-aid, and they listen to nothing but their own side. The peer pressure is immense to conform, and the votes are either unanimous or sometimes one lone dissenter. The LCFS had one vote against.

    One serious problem is that the folks with the experience and knowledge are discounted as liars and biased. Any independent expert who sides with those against the AGW legislation is branded as being paid to parrot. It is absolutely a no-win situation, and I sit frustrated watching this.

    The only satisfaction is knowing what is coming: complete and utter collapse of the economy in California due to the overly-burdensome regulations. Companies are failing all over, and the last thing they need is higher prices for fuel (e.g. ethanol), vehicles (e.g. special California high-mpg vehicles), electricity (e.g. 33 percent renewables with outrageously expensive, simple gas-turbines as backup power), and a host of others. As unemployment soars (11.2 pct), tax revenues plummet ($8 billion deficit in only a few weeks), and the state cannot borrow money due to very low credit ratings, this place will crumble. (referring to California). The same will happen across the U.S., as the federal standards take effect.

    I also wonder just what is to happen with the corn producers and their mandate to meet minimum ethanol production levels each year. Do policy makers know that farmers have bad years from time to time, or is this just An Inconvenient Truth? Do they know about weather-related crop failures? What will gasoline marketers do, when the oil refineries reduce capacity to 90 percent of today, in reliance on ethanol being available for 10 percent of gasoline? Are ethanol sellers stockpiling ethanol to get us through the bad years? Somehow, I doubt it. Make it and sell it, is their modus operandi.

    By way of comparison, oil refineries are operating at the low 80’s percent of capacity at the moment. Expect several of the marginally-profitable refineries to shut down soon. They require 90 percent utilization as a minimum.

    Gasoline shortages will happen in a corn-based ethanol fuel market, mark my words. The gasoline lines of the 70’s will look like a picnic compared to what is coming”.

    Roger,
    Just for the record, does this mean that the policy makers are out to destroy the Californian economy as a main objective or is this a case of ultimate stupidity?

  258. Richard deSousa says:

    Al Gore, like many of the AGW proponents, don’t want to debate. They’re cowards. As a matter of fact, Gore ducked a debate with Fred Singer on the Larry King show several years ago.

    http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/sengorebook.html

    I’d even bet James Hansen would duck a debate with Monckton.

  259. Ron de Haan says:

    What Monckton is not allowed to stop:

    FROM JEROME CORSI’S RED ALERT
    Killer ‘green’ bill to slaughter U.S. economy
    Obama drains lifeblood from financial system with climate legislation
    Posted: April 20, 2009
    10:52 am Eastern

    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of “The Late Great USA,” a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation’s sovereignty.

    With hearings in the House of Representatives on the Obama administration’s energy and climate change agenda, credible opponents are voicing concern that a U.S. “green” policy may kill the economy, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.

    James Hackett, chairman and chief executive officer of Anadarko, one of the nation’s largest independent oil and gas companies, told the Financial Times, “The histrionic and maniacal focus on carbon dioxide” risks plunging the United States into an economic tailspin that could turn the United States into “the world’s cleanest third world country.”

    (Story continues below)

    Hackett attacked the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade proposal that will be included in the bill to be before the House committee next week, calling the plan an indirect tax on individuals that would be as open to manipulation as the European model.

    The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., hosted a forum on clean energy policy and climate change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last week.

    “The Obama administration speakers at the MIT forum made it clear the Obama administration is dug in on the issue and intends to force the United States into the exact type of green policy that has oil executives like James Hackett concerned,” Corsi wrote.

    John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy told the group that, “The energy challenge we face is actually a more difficult challenge than putting a man on the moon was.”

    “We have to do things that pervade our whole economy,” Holdren insisted, “not just of this country but around the world, in order to get it done to the degree that is required.”

    Holdren listed a series of fears he claimed climate science had “proved” were happening faster than the predicted, already frightening, scenarios postulated by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    In his list, Holdren included effects on agriculture from changes in monsoons, more flooding from extreme precipitation and pest population explosions that are affecting the timber industry in the United States.

    “Tipping points” that lead to rapid climate change – such as rapid ice-sheet disintegration in the poles and the release of gasses trapped in permafrost, could “occur sooner rather than later,” he insisted.

    Three members of the Obama administration are scheduled to testify at the hearings on Markey’s bill next week, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

    Red Alert’s author, whose books “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command” have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, said the Obama administration intends for the House to vote on the legislation before the August recess, with a bill signed into law before the next round of international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Corsi received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

    In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.

    For more information on Obama’s climate agenda and for financial guidance during difficult times, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.”

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95543

  260. Peter Plail says:

    Fuelmaker
    The following link is an index of a number of papers, several of which cover historical records of measured CO2 values dating back 180 years

    http://www.biokurs.de/papers.htm

  261. Robert Bateman says:

    As Monckton put it bluntly, AGW’s recent win to get CO2 flagged by the EPA as a dangerous toxin is the equivalent of Prohibition. Energy (and CO2) will continue to be pumped out by those who control it, but to those who don’t, black market prices are thier penance to pay.
    As for CO2 sequestration, the yield of crops due to less C02 and falling temps globally will be a double whammy. The good news is that many governments are telling the US to stick it. The bad news is than the US is sticking it to itself and it’s population. Hockey Sticking it.
    The Depression had it’s Dust Bowl. The Global Downturn now has it’s victim to sacrifice on the altar of AGW. The USA,

  262. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Kum Dollison (22:46:04) :
    Roger Sowell (23:26:13) :

    The trouble with ethanol – Roger is quite right – is that the energy balance is poor.

    The energy required for preparation and fermentation of the feedstock is considerable. Fractional distillation (or alternative) to separate the ethanol from water also has a high energy demand. Drying of stillage etc. has a further energy requirement. Adding all this up, and never mind the energy used in transport of the feedstock, and the parasitic load of the plant is at least 60% (and I have seen much higher quoted). So for every 100kW or GJ of energy used by the plant, you’ll only get 40 (maximum) back out as energy.

    It is this poor energy conversion that bothers me.

  263. sukiho says:

    Watching the video and I can see why they didnt let him speak, I dont think Im going to get thru the whole hour, perhaps he has some good points but he takes far to long to get to them

  264. James P says:

    jon (05:03:17) :

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel.

    As has already been pointed out, the substitutes for lead aren’t exactly harmless, either. Unlike most current politicians, Mrs T had a scientific background (in chemistry) and knew the score. One of her few failures was to persuade the EU to adopt lean-burn petrol engines in favour of catalytic converters. Cats require a richer mixture to avoid damage, which increases overall consumption, and since they take 15-20 minutes to reach working temperature, they do little good in a crowded island like the UK. Lean-burn would have made cars simpler and more efficient, and would not have required an expensive, easily-damaged component containing precious metal.

  265. Chris Wright says:

    @ Christopher Monckton,
    From one Christopher to another:
    I would like to join the others in saying a big thank you for your work so far and in wishing you success for the future.
    As I’ve always been interested in science I’m now quite surprised that climate change didn’t really appear on my radar until just over two years ago. I was aware of Kyoto and its criticisms, and a friend wrote a letter to the Times about ten years ago to say that global warming was natural and driven by the sun. But that’s about it.
    I think it was your two articles printed in the Sunday Telegraph that alerted me to what was going on. Unlike its sister publication, the Sunday Telegraph is fairly balanced on climate change and a week later it printed a ‘rebuttal’ from Al Gore. If your articles made me lean towards scepticism then Gore’s article probably clinched it!
    At about that time I started to research climate change. I asked a reasonable question: what is the proof that the 20th century warming was driven by carbon dioxide? I have to report that, after two years of searching, I have to say the ‘overwhelming proof’ is remaining somewhat elusive. To put it bluntly, I can’t find a shred of evidence to support what I call strong AGW.
    I take science very seriously and what I have found makes me very sad. It does look like an important branch of science has been badly corrupted by politics, money and an almost religious form of fanaticism. I’m also sad to see the media such as the BBC and the Daily Telegraph giving completely biased and one-sided coverage (the Sunday Telegraph being an honourable exception).
    Science often gets things wrong but in the long term it always finds the truth (how many scientists today believe that the sun goes around the earth?) I’m sure this will happen in climate science. But, because of the vast vested interests that climate scientists have in alarmism, I suspect it will take many years. But it’s a fight worth fighting. If Gore and his kind have their way governments around the world will squander trillions of dollars chasing imaginary demons. Meanwhile, the world has real problems to solve such as the global recession, provision of clean water, the fight against malaria.
    I wish you the very best of luck in this fight for reason. I am confident that, in the long run, the truth will prevail, whatever it might be.
    Chris

  266. Smokey says:

    Brendan H (23:31:53),

    You just can not stop with the ad hominem attacks, can you? If you’re interested in debating the specific science, point by point, raised by Monckton or anyone else, I’m ready, willing and able to take you on.

    When I said that ‘Brendan H. is doing his usual character assassination. He can’t dispute Monckton’s facts, so he does his typical ad hominem attack,’ philincalifornia responded, “The gauntlet is down Brendan H. Can you dispute Monckton’s facts??

    Your response was only more ad hominem attacks. You run from discussing the central CO2=AGW issue, because that hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. You cannot win the argument on its merits, so you take the coward’s way out and attack another individual for having an opinion different than yours.

    The fact that you always resort to personally attacking the messenger, rather than debating the message, shows that you lack the facts to support your position.

    You’re simply being a pest.

  267. LilacWine says:

    Lord Monckton,

    as a crass Antipodean I’m not sure of the protocol involved but I shall *curtsey* to you and thank you for your contributions and hard work on this matter. I detest being lied to and and any effort to bring truth to the surface is to be lauded. If you’re ever in Sydney, Australia, you and your family are very welcome for dinner at my humble abode. I do a mean lamb roast with all the trimmings! :-D

  268. Mike Bryant says:

    Thermophobia
    An abnormally excessive and persistent fear of heat, including hot weather and hot objects. Sufferers from this fear experience anxiety even though they realize their fear is irrational. To avoid heat, they may live in a cold climate, wear light clothing, stay indoors on warm days, and avoid hot water and hot foods. Thermophobics may also be involved in any organization that desires cold over warmth, and have been known to explore cold places. Thermophobics can be very dangerous to themselves and others. If you know a thermophobic, please urge them to seek treatment before the condition can cause irreparable damage to occur.

  269. juan says:

    Monckton of Brenchley

    Let my add my name to the many who thank you for _inconveniencing_ yourself on our mutual behalf.
    I have a question that I have not seen elsewhere: Have any of our ill-mannered lawmakers offered to reimburse you for your expenses?

  270. Fuelmaker says:

    First of all, thank you for your various references to my question about historical CO2. I am seriously disillusioned about the historical CO2 basis for AGW (and at 49yo with 2 ex-wives and 4 children, that is not common, sorry WAAAAY OT).

    The famous “hockey stick” fraud almost killed AGW. I believe the dissemination of the fact that they turned the sawtooth CO2 record into a leading hockey stick could really finish the job. Beck should get some kind of prize for exposing the fraud. The conspiracy to find BOTH temperature records and CO2 records to prove the AGW theory is pretty clear to me now. Anthony, the previous threads on this were so lively, can you start another one or even provide a resource to spread the word more forcefully?

    Second, and also OT. I am an agricultural engineer and have worked in energy for my whole career. This is not the place to snipe at each other about your pet peeves regarding subsidies. I currently manufacture wood fuel for home heating and do not want any subsidies, because that will just mess up the market with a bunch of stupid money building bad projects until the politics changes.

    I did business with Kinder Morgan, they are a great company. They will ship ethanol or blends as soon as standards and regulations are changed to allow it. There is nothing magical about ethanol that makes it impossible to ship by pipe. It is just extremely hydrophilic, in fact it is used as a dryer. Small quantities of water from the atmosphere can cause big problems because the ethanol will come out of solution if it absorbs too much water in a gasoline blend.

    Corn ethanol is a competitive fuel, even without the tax break. I am happy to burn the starchy part of corn to run my car instead of importing it from Hugo Chavez. I came very close to restarting an ethanol plant in Florida to convert low value byproducts into fuel.

    I can give you lots of info on ethanol economics if you want, but this is not the place and I do this to feed my family. In short, to make a gallon of ethanol, fermentation does not require any energy, distillation requires about 2% of it’s energy, and dehydration to fuel purity requires about another 2%. Of course, you would be stupid to burn your finished product to make low quality heat, that is why you use a cheaper fuel source like a landfill gas, wood chips, or coal. The biggest fuel use at most plants is drying the valuable, high protein byproduct. You shouldn’t “charge” this against the ethanol production, and the best plants feed the wet byproducts to eliminate that cost.

  271. Just Want Truth... says:

    “Richard deSousa (01:51:01) : I’d even bet James Hansen would duck a debate with Monckton.”

    He has already avoided appearing with John Christy.

  272. I think that the only way to counteract such a escatological myths campaingning, which will surely lead to the ending of occidental civilization as we know it, is to oppose it with all the REAL scientific data about the solar minimum we are in. Those who can reach a wide audience, as Lord Monckton, should forget talking about the “competitor´s product” and start telling everybody about the real science facts we are experiencing regarding the sun´s minimum.

  273. Smokey says:

    Michigan’s Rep. Dingell tells the truth: click

    The fallout should be interesting. See the comments that follow Dingell’s statement. You’ll see that we’re not alone here, like the alarmist contingent wants us to believe.

  274. starzmom says:

    I will also add my thanks to Lord Monckton, and my apologies for our rude Congress.

    This debate is the reason I (an environmental engineer) am going to Law school. I only hope it’s not all over before I get out in 3 years.

    Keep up the good work everybody!

  275. Pamela Gray says:

    Adolfo, what would those facts be regarding the Sun, and I am assuming you mean your list of facts as to the direct and demonstrable affect of the Sun on the trend we have seen this century, both up, and the recent downturn, in Earth’s global mean temperature. I haven’t found any.

    There are lots of run-of-the-mill, terribly unromantic, but very plausible theories about trade winds and oceanic oscillations, as well as good, correlational data to back them up. But I must admit, it is very 5th grade stuff. Nonetheless, it is there.

  276. Richard M says:

    Fuelmaker (07:07:48) :,

    Thanks for the information on ethanol. Having looked for information I am well aware there is much conflicting information. Or should I say that misinformation abounds. While I believe there are better choices for bio-fuel than corn, I also think it is one part of a larger equation that can reduce our dependencies on imports. I’d much rather pay farmers than Chavez or already rich sheiks. The farmers will in turn spend that money in ways that can only help the struggling economy.

    PS. Let me add my thanks to Lord Monckton for his efforts. Not only this week, but over several years. I am hopeful the events that have transpired will make obvious the political nature of AGW.

  277. RayB says:

    First I would like to thank Lord Monckton for his efforts to bring some actual truth to the AGW (Since that didn’t work out, climate change..) debate. I read his work in the letter posted last week, and it was well done and concise. I would also like to apologize for the Democrat’s behavior this week. They are truly the spoiled undisciplined idiot children of America. Please do not let their lack of class and basic courtesy offend you. Many of us don’t think much of them either. I feel that not only should you be compensated for your carbon footprint, you should be invited back with full press coverage, as well as being compensated as if it were a paid speaking engagement for both trips.

    As long as our thoughts are being soiled by the presence of algore,and his settled science, let’s approach this scientifically. Let’s take the coasts where they want the carbon sequestration, carbon taxes, no coal, and so on, and let them live their dream. Let us folks in the middle have it our way, and we will revisit it every 10 years or so. If you want to be taxed on your prosperity and the very air that you breathe, go right ahead and show us what a great idea it is. Take half of the population and lead by example. Should you be successful, your schemes will spread throughout the land to a willing and grateful populace who have learned from your wisdom and leadership. More likely it will turn out like the rest of the liberal schemes that have come to fruition in the ghettos of New Orleans, Detroit and every other major city in the USA, or in the crumbling state of California. In a true science, there is a control and there is an experiment, let’s do it that way here too. This is too important to get all of the way wrong, and the half that does, got what they asked for.

    The same democrats have big plans to tax all forms of energy along with the air that we breathe and the critters that we eat. It is not about the science, it is about the money and the control. They seek to tightly control the root of our prosperity, controlling the population through a scarcity of resources. Included as a bonus in all of this is socialism, world governance under the UN, population reduction, and all kinds of other nifty stuff. The agenda is too important to be clouded by science or truth. It has nothing to do with climate or environment, except to the AGW movement’s ovine followers and foot soldiers, to which it is a religion.

    Energy is prosperity, and the only thing that separates us from a 1800s lifestyle. To tax something means to impede it, like taxing your engine going up a big hill in a car. To tax energy is to impede prosperity. That must sound good to an America loathing democrat.

  278. Ron de Haan says:

    Fuelmaker (07:07:48) :

    First of all, thank you for your various references to my question about historical CO2. I am seriously disillusioned about the historical CO2 basis for AGW (and at 49yo with 2 ex-wives and 4 children, that is not common, sorry WAAAAY OT).

    The famous “hockey stick” fraud almost killed AGW. I believe the dissemination of the fact that they turned the sawtooth CO2 record into a leading hockey stick could really finish the job. Beck should get some kind of prize for exposing the fraud. The conspiracy to find BOTH temperature records and CO2 records to prove the AGW theory is pretty clear to me now. Anthony, the previous threads on this were so lively, can you start another one or even provide a resource to spread the word more forcefully?

    Second, and also OT. I am an agricultural engineer and have worked in energy for my whole career. This is not the place to snipe at each other about your pet peeves regarding subsidies. I currently manufacture wood fuel for home heating and do not want any subsidies, because that will just mess up the market with a bunch of stupid money building bad projects until the politics changes.

    I did business with Kinder Morgan, they are a great company. They will ship ethanol or blends as soon as standards and regulations are changed to allow it. There is nothing magical about ethanol that makes it impossible to ship by pipe. It is just extremely hydrophilic, in fact it is used as a dryer. Small quantities of water from the atmosphere can cause big problems because the ethanol will come out of solution if it absorbs too much water in a gasoline blend.

    Corn ethanol is a competitive fuel, even without the tax break. I am happy to burn the starchy part of corn to run my car instead of importing it from Hugo Chavez. I came very close to restarting an ethanol plant in Florida to convert low value byproducts into fuel.

    I can give you lots of info on ethanol economics if you want, but this is not the place and I do this to feed my family. In short, to make a gallon of ethanol, fermentation does not require any energy, distillation requires about 2% of it’s energy, and dehydration to fuel purity requires about another 2%. Of course, you would be stupid to burn your finished product to make low quality heat, that is why you use a cheaper fuel source like a landfill gas, wood chips, or coal. The biggest fuel use at most plants is drying the valuable, high protein byproduct. You shouldn’t “charge” this against the ethanol production, and the best plants feed the wet byproducts to eliminate that cost”.

    Fuelmaker
    Thanks for your views.

    I am interested in more background on ethanol production, maybe you could write a short article containing all key information?
    I’m always open for a revised view!

  279. Roger Sowell says:

    Ron de Haan (01:33:05)

    “Roger,
    Just for the record, does this mean that the policy makers are out to destroy the Californian economy as a main objective or is this a case of ultimate stupidity?”

    Ron, I am not sure. At times, it appears that the policy-makers and regulation-implementers want a growing, robust economy with good-paying jobs for all, AND a clean environment. At least, that is what they say they want. Then, they enact legislation like AB 32 and all its sub-parts. As far as I know, it has not been discussed on WUWT, but there is another major economy-killer legislation in California, The Green Chemistry Initiative. I tell the audiences in my speeches that AB 32 will be known as the “Bill that Killed California.”

    As Confucius said, “I used to listen to what a man said, and trust that he would do what he said. Now, I still listen to what a man says, but watch carefully what he does.” It is far more important to watch what the policy-makers do, rather than what they say.

    My theory is that the greeny-weenies will not be happy until California’s economy consists of nothing more than tourism and government. And probably some hamburger joints and posh coffee shops and boozerias.

  280. Kum Dollison says:

    Last year, Mexico produced 3.2 Million barrels of oil/day. By March, they were down to 2.65 Million bpd. They use 2.1 mbpd, domestically. That means their exports to the US are down from 1.1 Million barrels/day, to 0.55 mbpd.

    This is being repeated all around the world. Venezuela is steadily falling. The North Sea is plunging. England is now a net oil Importer. Canada’s oil production is flat. Russia is Declining. Nigeria is declining.

    China’s consumption is rising at the rate of about 1.0 Million bpd, EVERY YEAR.

    Telling people that are still smarting from $147.00/barrel oil that renewable/homegrown energy is a BAD thing might not be the way to win allies over to your anti-AGW cause.

    The common suspicion is that the anti-AGW camp is, basically, a big oil-financed operation. Railing against solar/wind/biofuels to someone who, last year, was paying $4.25/gal for gasoline only reinforces that opinion.

    Roger, you must be referring to the “Corn Plus” plant in Winnebago, Mn. I, correctly, stated that they obtain 50% of their process energy by burning the syrup (thin stillage) from their DDGS. That IS what they do. That brings their energy from nat gas down to about 16,000 btus. I have, already, referenced Poet’s Chancellors Plant that obtains all of their process energy from landfill gas, and waste wood.

    We had the worst “growing weather” last year in decades, and we “put away” a record 1.7 Billion Bushels.

    You can rail against CARB if you want to, but people in LA realize that the air quality improved, significantly, in S Ca after 5.7% ethanol was introduced into the fuel supply. It had nothing to do with CO2, of course. It was the reduction in Carbon Monoxide (which leads to ozone formation in the lower atmosphere.) The thing is: people want “cleaner” air, and ethanol delivers it.

    People, also, don’t like spending a Billion Dollars/Day, and American Kids’ Lives supporting the oil business in the Middle East (I drive MY flexfuel Chevey on 85% ethanol) No one DIES for MY fuel, and MY money stays in the U.S. of A.

  281. Ron de Haan (14:20:36) :
    Nobody protested the flight-tax.
    The public simply traveled from airports located in Belgium and Germany.
    The only protests came from the Airport Holding and KLM, but only after they were confronted with decreasing passenger numbers.

    Why protest if you have work-around as the ultimate protest, voting with your feet? The fact that Dutch travelers where relocated by travel-agencies and airline operators like Ryan-air is the just one of the reasons that this tax failed.

    KLM, Transavia (also Dutch) and Air Farce protested, and Ryan Air, Volare Airlines, Corendon, El Al Cargo stopped flights from the Netherlands, Easy Jet reduced the number of flights, other organisations that protested: ANVR, MNP, Nederlands Bureau voor Toerisme & Congressen, Chamber of Commerce and VNO-NCW, especially that last organisation is very important since it is the Dutch employers’ federation and they represent some 80% of the smaller companies in the Netherlands and nearly all the larger companies.

    No protests?

  282. kim says:

    Kum, we went round and round before, and you are pretty smooth but you can’t get around four points: Mandates(central economic planning) are perverting, Subsidies(tax money better spent by the Invisible Hand) are impoverishing, biofuel(domestically from corn and internationally from palm oil) is an environmental horror show, and land diverted from feeding livestock and people raises the price of food. Sorry, you just don’t escape those truths.
    ==========================================

  283. kim says:

    You want the money to stay here? Drill, Baby, Drill.
    ==========================================

  284. kim says:

    And please, ‘No Blood for Oil’ is the tiredest leftist meme of all. Furthermore, wars classically, commonly, have been about the means to energize a polity, but that was way down the list in the Middle East. Get real here.
    ==============================================

  285. Kum Dollison (08:43:50) :
    ….and Brazil has discovered a SEA OF OIL in front of Rio de Janeiro. Nature is plentiful and we are too small and too few to make any substantial change in nature, we are but an almost undetectable mold on earth´s surface. Next time you travel look downwards through the airplane´s window.

  286. AKD says:

    No one DIES for MY fuel, and MY money stays in the U.S. of A.

    No one you know or care about.

  287. Roger Sowell says:

    Kum Dollison:

    Do you REALLY want me to copy verbatim what you wrote earlier on WUWT regarding ethanol, and how you had to duck and cover on the energy use?

    The fact is that I told YOU that the MN plant was burning syrup, and they were therefore claiming some galaxy-shaking breakthrough on energy. Nope, not even close. Energy input remains the same.

    Please, do not believe and spew forth the misleading (and flat-out wrong) claims of ethanol lobbyists.

    The facts are clear: fuel-grade ethanol requires as much or more energy than is produced. No weasel-words can overcome that simple thermodynamic fact.

    For you to support the ethanol fuel industry clearly identifies you as an AGW true believer.

    Kum, I tire of responding to your nonsense. Let me give you some facts, with sources, so you can learn how this is done. You are repeating tired old (and disproven) Liberal talking points with your nonsense about the U.S. spending $1 billion per day for Middle Eastern oil. Your numbers are off (on the high side) by a factor of about 10. It is interesting, too, that the Liberals’ mantra of $700 Billion per year is now (according to you) down to half that. Moving the goalposts, are you?

    The fact is (from EIA, see source below) that the U.S. imports merely 2.3 million barrels of oil per day, on average, from the Persian Gulf (Middle East). At current prices of around $50 per barrel, that represents a cash flow of $114 million dollars per day, not $1 billion per day as you so wrongly stated.

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimuspg1m.htm

    I also drive a flex-fuel vehicle, and refuse to run any E85 in it, ever.

    You are also very wrong about the air quality in Southern California, and why it is cleaner today than 20 years ago. There are many factors, and oxygenates in gasoline is merely one. Higher CAFE standards, older cars off the roads, catalytic converters, electronic engine controls with oxygen sensors, and CARB reformulated gasoline all played key roles, as well as aggressive regulations on non-mobile sources including PM10 and NOx sources.

  288. Nature transforms, recycles, for free organics (all plants, our bodies, plastics, etc) into several products: Methane, propane, butane, oil, bones into phosphate rock, Gore´s CO2 into calcium carbonate,etc.
    Let us stop pretending what we are NOT. You americans have enough gas and oil to export so don´t follow such moron´s ideas, more proper of anthropopithecus than of thinking human beings.
    Such CO2 foolness is simply preposterous. The air (out of which CO2 it is just 3.85 PER TEN THOUSAND)
    can not hold heat compared to liquid water (3227 times less) or ground (2000 times).
    The GWrs.guys are cheating you for an unknown secret interest or simply because of some psychotic mass infection, something like the “cargo cults” of the pacific islands´tribes, a kind of peculiar creed that you americans are too prone to.

  289. Barbara Mortkowitz says:

    Your piece is the only one I could find in-line !!! Thanks so much for writing it up. Spread the word

  290. Kum: “It was the reduction in Carbon Monoxide (which leads to ozone formation in the lower atmosphere.)”
    Ethanol (C2H5OH) when it burns produces THE SAME:
    C2H5OH + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O
    So THERE YOU HAVE THE SAME CO2 YOUR AL LOVES!!!

  291. You see?, some rolly polly out there is cheating you all
    It is unbearably stupid!!

  292. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Fuelmaker (07:07:48) :
    on ethanol economics – “fermentation does not require any energy”

    Perhaps in homebrew, but at industrial scale it most certainly does. Let

    For 1 tonne corn the energy content is ~19GJ/tonne
    Ethanol Yield ~ 380L/tonne
    Energy content ethanol =23.4MJ/L
    380 x 23.4 = 8.9GJ
    Net Energy Yield only 46% of what you started with and that is before you add the energy used in processing.

  293. Ted Clayton says:

    Kum Dollison (08:43:50),

    There is no doubt that $147.00 oil and $4.25 gasoline is a rock-solid datum, and that instability & assorted ugliness in the Middle East underscore the point.

    However, I think the rock-solid datum upon which anti-AGW folks base their attack on expensive forms of renewable/homegrown energy, is the option of relatively cheap coal in ample domestic supply.

    We have ready solutions to major parts of the energy equation, right here at home, but they are being suppressed, nay, persecuted, on the basis of CO2 release which anti-AGW people do not think is a problem that we should hamstring ourselves to solve.

    Ethanol is fine by me, except for the need to raise overall energy costs to make it more viable. Give coal free rein in the market place, and ethanol tends to drop out of the running. So alcohol is ‘artificially’ supported, by rigging the game to exclude a superior contributor to the energy-budget.

    I’m not especially ‘tender’ to air-pollution, but when I first drove into Los Angeles in the early 1970s in my open-top Austin-Healy Sprite, I would have donned one of our Navy Oxygen Breathing Apparatus get-ups, if I’d had one. It was bad.

    It hasn’t been that bad in a long time. LA started doing the easiest, cheapest, and most-significant things to improve their air, and it’s improved steadily ever since. Notwithstanding that their Basin still develops very strong thermal inversions, holding all the crud down near the ground … a condition they knew about, before embarking upon a world-class urban development program.

    I don’t doubt that increased ethanol in gas does make a noticeable improvement in the LA air. What I would question, though, is whether LA Incorporated (and other over-dense urban enterprises) has a reasonable claim to expect the rest of the nation to essentially underwrite the clean-up of a problem they brought upon themselves, and which they appear unwilling to address at anything approaching the root causes.

    We’re being hoodwinking into accepting higher energy costs that could be mitigated by using coal, because certain kinds of goals can be achieved only by escalating energy-costs – even if it has to be done as a scam. In our present context, the key scam-datum is that CO2 is dangerous & unhealthy, and that coal is an excessive CO2 contributor.

    Anti-AGW people don’t buy that CO2 is a problem.

  294. Ted Clayton says:

    Gosh, comment-Preview would sure be a big relief! ;-)

  295. Robert Bateman says:

    I have written my Congressman, he has responded, and he does not support AGW, Gore or thier agenda. They may get away with it, but they will not do it unanimously nor with popular support. The only thing melting right now is support for Global Warming. They will get no help from the Sun, which now stands in defiant revolt.

  296. Ron de Haan says:

    Kum Dollison (20:57:13) :

    1) “Ron, E85, burned in a smaller, higher compression engine will give BETTER H.P/Mileage than gasoline. It’s a function of E85’s 113 Octane Rating.

    2) 240 Million cars in the U.S. are burning some amount (2% to 10% to 85%) ethanol, and NO gasline/freezing problems are being reported.

    3) Gasoline is much more Volatile than ethanol.

    4) Ethanol emits NO proven carcinogens (although, formaldehyde in large concentrations has been suspected,) however, Gasoline gives off BENZENE, a Big-Time Carcinogen.

    5) A kernel of corn is 1/3 starch, 1/3 CO2, and 1/3 proteins, nutrients. The ethanol process only uses the starch. All of the proteins, and other nutrients are preserved (plus, some extra are picked up from the yeast.) That’s why a pound of distillers grains will yield 33% more weight gain than a pound of corn – Univ. of Nebraska.

    6) We have about a Billion Acres in the U.S. that can be used for Agriculture. After allowing for distillers grains, we used about 13 Million for ethanol this year. This replaced about 7 percent of our gasoline use.

    Oh, and we took about 5 Million Acres OUT of Production this year. And, carried over a record 1.7 Billion Bushels of Corn. The current price of corn is about $0.07/lb”.

    KUM DOLLISON,

    I am reporting from European experiences with bio fuels.

    Since the introduction of ethanol gasoline blends and diesel ethanol blend/ biodiesel ethanol blends there are major problems.

    Ethanol is HYGROSCOPIC, it attracts water and water dissolves salts, causing corrosion.

    I am sure these problems will fade away if car manufacturers choose the right materials but today the problems are simply there and they don’t go away.

    Ethanol compared to gasoline certainly not generates the helath/environment improvements as advertised by the stakeholders.

    The other aspect I mentioned, the low flash point of ethanol is a real serious safety risk.
    People wear ever more nylon clothing and they are cause static electric charges very easily, especially during the fuel stop at the tank.

    As stated, no adaption or additional security measures have been taken and can only advice that if you make a fuel stop at a fuel station, to be extra careful and don’t leave any persons in the car when fueling.

    Also the road transportation of ethanol is in need of adaption because an ethanol fire needs a different approach compared to a gasoline fires.
    Fire squads need additional equipment and training to deal with those kind of fires.

    Ethanol mixed fuels kills the injection systems

    Freezing fuel lines have been reported in Europe but the big bulk of problems occured with bio diesel.

    Have a look at this Stanford Research on E85 about Human Health Evaluation
    and the other article about Diesel/Ethanol blends.
    The third link is about water use.
    The last link is the safety sheet for ethanol

    The experience in Europe, all the arguments presented by Roger and the fact that ethanol fuel would not exist if it was not for the AGW Hoax and the massive grant programs makes my case.

    There are much more viable and cheap clean fuel options like Liquid Petroleum gas which can be used to clean up the particle emissions in diesel engines and boost the milage and gasoline cars, especially the big trucks that perfectly run on this clean cheap fuel without any grants.

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145904.php
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_23_5/ai_80193597/
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145904.php
    http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/ET/ethyl_alcohol.html

  297. Ron de Haan says:

    Roger Sowell (08:33:16)
    Thanks for your response.

    Very difficult if the technical and scientific aspects of a subject are ignored and ruling
    bears evidence that you are dealing with idiots.

    It’s hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.

  298. Kum Dollison says:

    Those that have studied it have concluded that the availability of ethanol Lowered the price of Gasoline by approx. $0.35/gal last year. One Study:

    http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp467.pdf

    We Import over 9 Million Barrels of Oil, Daily.

    While, only 2.3 Million Barrels/Day came from the Persian Gulf, we spent, at least, $200 Billion last year protecting that oil. And, about 600 young, American Kids’ Lives.

    Kim, I am a Vietnam Veteran, and an Ex-Marine. I’ve earned the right to discuss Casualties of War. I’ve, also, never voted for a Dem for Pres in my life.

    Ellie, your numbers don’t take into account the DDGS. We only use the “starch” in ethanol production. We Retain 40% of the animal-feeding capacity of our corn.

    Also, don’t confuse BTUs with the “ability to perform work.” They tell most of the story if all you want to do is “boil water.” If you want to power an Internal Combustion Engine you, also, must consider Octane. Ethanol is about 30% Higher than Gasoline in Octane Rating. That means it can be compressed to all get-out, thus enabling it to deliver Much More Power. You can, actually, get More Miles per Gallong of Ethanol than you can gasoline in a properly designed engine.

    Kim, above you confused field corn with finished, processed food. There is much less energy invested in field corn.

    Look folks, Oil is a finite resource. So is coal. We don’t have nearly as much of the “Good Coal” as many folks think. Batteries will only take you so far. Many people think Oil Production has already “peaked.” Most other analysts think we’re getting pretty close. Everyone knows there are about 2.5 Billion Chinese, and Indians that want their share of the “Prosperity (read – private transportation) Pie.

    All Recession, except one, since WWII have been preceeded by a “Spike” in Oil Prices. The “Next” one will, almost certainly, be No Different.

  299. Monckton, warm thanks.

    Rephelan and Fuelmaker (and others)
    Re. the suspect CO2 hockey stick that the ice core record reveals, see here for what looks like a fair way to reclaim higher and more reasonable CO2 figures for the past

    Re. recent CO2 figures, today I utterly, mind-bogglingly surprised myself. I found, from the MLO and CDIAC graphs, that postulating a very low “emissions absorption” rate of 16.4% per decade, gives an extremely high fit with the MLO curve and a curve of a constant 57% of total cumulative emissions. Weird. But in the interests of good Science, I would like this out in the open – and please, if possible, in a skeptic blog like this one – since this finding would appear, at first sight, to strengthen the warmist position, or at least the CO2-is-our-emissions part. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/MLO-emissions.htm I know perfectly well that “correlation is not causation” and I still think we have a weird coincidence here, and that natural factors are also at work; but this deserves further investigation IMO, without bias as to causation.

  300. Robert Bateman says:

    Maybe there is a case to be made, Adolfo, that certain people emit soot as they exhale. The solution, as with any dirty emission problem, is to take a bath. Carbon soot may be easily solved by passing the gases through a water filter bath. For other solutions, a catalytic converter is a simple solution.
    But cleaning up the irritants, particulates and scrubbing the truly toxic gases is not in that agenda.
    Imposing Consumer Energy Use prohibition is.
    They would even outlaw agriculture, the horse and animal husbandry.
    Liquidation sale: Everything must go. The Temple of AGW must be sacrificed upon.

  301. Mark_0454 says:

    I have wondered what if Ca. was allowed to implement higher emission standards and one of the major car companies simply said “no.” “We’re sorry, but we simply can’t build vehicles to meet those requirements.”

  302. D. King says:

    Just Want Truth… (01:03:09) :

    “D. King (23:05:09) : What a noble man! He’s going to give all that money away!”

    He said the money is going to global warming “awareness”.

    Are you kidding me? I was being sarcastic!!! This guy is as corrupt as they come!

  303. Roger Sowell says:

    Ellie, Ron, Smokey, Adolfo, Kim, and others who see through the ethanol BS:

    Keep shining the light of truth on those who present bad science. I love it!

    Btw…the Federal Register published EPA’s CO2 proposed finding. The clock is ticking for public comments.

  304. TonyB says:

    Rephelan
    Fuel maker

    Presumably you two are newcomers if you haven’t previously come across the enormous amount of information on Beck -much of it posted here.

    As this is a general thread on Monckton -who is very interested in Becks findings- I guess it is ok to repeat a long post I made on this subject here last year. It consists of a piece of information from me, then my replies to several people who had raised interesting questions during the long discussion that ensued. Hopefully it should all make sense even if it is not in a linear format.

    As Smokey mentions, Ernst is very willing to reply to anyone who wishes to discuss this subject with him. For the record -and after a very thorough investigation-I think Ernst is essentially correct with his findings. However, if this post gathers any momentum you can be sure that Ferdinand will be over to dispute Becks findings! Hope you find this of interest.

    ” TonyB (10:39:58) :

    My message to Chris V

    Sorry, you obviously didn’t see my original post which would have explained the background much better. I took a complete data set (from Becks findings) as a first pass and inserted them on the graph. I then looked at each record individually from within the group.

    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls contains

    the information in an active excel spread sheet-hover your mouse pointer over a figure to read its values.

    The measurements shown come from a variety of sources and a number were discounted at the time and are a matter of historical record only (for example only one measurement taken, equipment uncalibrated, taken over the water etc.)
    Also a number of measurements were deliberately taken in known ‘co2 hot spots’-hospitals, mines and factories, for monitoring purposes and would be expected to be higher than those in free atmosphere.

    I examined in considerable depth some 12 free atmosphere measurements with regards to the scientist, methodology, weather conditions at the time etc, and have no reason to believe they weren’t accurate.

    Virtualy all the co2 ‘action’ seems to take place around 280ppm (very cold period ) to 380ppm (around as warm as today) and the difference is from 600gt to 800gt- Cdiac say that 1ppm equals 2.13 gt.

    According to Endersbee, the following scale of outgassing is possible;
    “Ocean area is 360,000,000 sq km = 360 x 10^12 sq metres
    Mass: 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg = 10^12 m^3 water
    Volume of oceans to 3m depth = 360 x 3 x 10^12 m^3 ie approx. 10^15 m^3
    Mass of oceans to 3m depth = 10^15 / 10^9 Gt = 10^6 Gt
    CO2 dissolved to 3m at 15ºC = 10^6 x 0.2/100 Gt = 2,000 Gt
    CO2 outgassed for 0.1ºC temp rise = 2,000 x 0.3/100 Gt = 6 Gt ie one year’s emissions
    CO2 outgassed from 30m depth for 1ºC global temp rise = 600 Gt ie near-total atmospheric content.”

    So if temperatures fluctuate considerably from one year to the next-as happens frequently as can be seen in the chart-then a substantial movement in co2 levels appears possible.

    Perfectly reliable figures were recorded in the warm 1940s of around 380ppm, Keeling took a first measurement of 315ppm in the relatively cooler 1950’s-see below;
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998.html

    Since then the temperature has climbed steadily and we are (were!)as warm again as the 1930/40’s and the co2 levels have returned to the levels of that time-surely this is to be expected if the co2 levels are a reasonable
    indicator of temperatures?

    Now the main conundrum is we don’t know if the reliable free atmosphere records in the group are responding to contemporary temperatures, or those from many years ago -some people say temperatures rise first then co2 follows up to 800 years later.

    Personally I think the cause and effect is much quicker than that, but whether that is a few months or a couple of decades I dont know. IF response time is quick and IF global temperatures are dropping notably, we should expect to see a stumble in the co2 figures from Mauna Loa as oceans take up co2 at levels far greater than humans emit them-but whether that will be next year or much later I don’t know.

    I would also point out that mixing is not as comprehensive as many think; cdiacs and Noaa’s own maps show a differential of up to 20ppm at any time, so that could acount for a substantial proportion of any unexpectedly large co2 differential between one year and the next.

    I think it is important also to recognise that co2 levels are an indicator of temperatures but are not a thermometer-so correlation is unlikely to be exact.

    To see for yourself a very small part of the co2 science available over the last century and a half take a read of ‘Air and water’ by renowned chemist R Smith (who discovered acid rain). This book was written in 1872 and demonstrates the high quality of the science available at the time and the meticulous manner of the often world famous scientists who took readings.
    http://www.archive.org/stream/airrainbeginning00smitiala

    Numerous other documents by other famous scientists are available that illustrate they knew what they were doing. The report from Mr Giles Slocum of the US Weather bureau in 1955 is particularly interesting as it directly contradict GS Callendars 1938 assertions that 1900AD co2 levels were some 295ppm-from which pre industrial 280ppm was extrapolated and which Charles Keeling joined up to his own 315ppm in 1958 to demonstrate the ‘Keeling curve’.

    Further reading on the reliability of records can be seen here -this refers to a British parliamentary report around 1890 on the monitoring of Cotton factories, who had been set emission levels of 900ppm in 1889
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7GHLv-rLifgC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=prosecution+co2+cotton+factory+1889+factories+act&source=web&ots=rPD5OFQUIG&sig=3wPlj-HR9A-B2aEr0H1yk9xXJQM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA154,M1

    According to ice cores the pre industrial co2 levels were at a constant 280ppm-which obviously contradicts this data completely and supports GS Callendars selected data.
    However, if that is so why did the temperatures vary so much in the past-surely if co2 if a good indicator the temperatures should also be fairly constant throughout the last tens of thousands of years?

    (There were then several responses to which I responded as follows)

    Sorry everyone, in the time I took to reply and post my reply to Chris V many others have commented-hope I have covered your points.

    Anna
    Keelings organisation has the virtual monopoly on calibration and of reference gases-I am not a supporter of conspiracy theories so that may or may not be of any significance. I have posted a little in my reply to Chris about the selective data that G S Callendar used. On Charles Keelings admittance in his autobigraphy, Callendar influenced his early work and he accepted the figures of 280ppm pre industrial and 295ppm in 1900. This was contrary to other published information which consistently showed much more variable figures

    Chris V
    Yes you can ascertain exactly who the scentists were and the circumstances in which they took their readings-they are either in my data or in the material posted about Becks website referenced earlier. Unlike some other people Beck actually details his sources and puts them online without someone needing to file a freedom of information notice to obtain the information.
    If you want a bibliography of the other suppliers of measurements, Beck has included them. I suggest the comprehensive papers from Benedict and the 1917 paper would make as illuminating reading as ‘Air and Water’ that I referenced in my last post. Taking co2 measurements was common and reliable from around 1820 when Saussure took a long series by Lake Geneva in Switzerland.

    The measurements weren’t being taken out of context by third rate practitioners using primitive equipment but by noted people as part of the scientifc and social life of the age. We even have pictures and adverts for the equipment!
    If you are really interested in how embedded co2 readings were in everyday life I can cite a variety of documents.

    I am sure Beck can be selective-as we all are to prove our point-however there are far too many readings by far too many good scientists who really knew what they were doing, to be able to turn round and say ‘it is garbage.’
    The real story revolves round the highly selective measurements taken to prove his AGW theory by GS Callendar, and Charles Keelings endorsement of them in 1956 because he was a young man, in a new job, who knew nothing of climate science or co2 measurements and accepted what he was told by a respected meteorologist. This is not an AD Hom attack-Keeling seemed a genuinely nice man and Callendar was a very interesting and extremely worthy person in his professional life. However he was an amateur meteorologist -I suggest you go over to Real Climate tell them you’re an amateur with a new theory and see how long they take to rip you to pieces!

    Bill
    you said;

    “I imagine there could have been lower CO2 than the 280 ppm imagined. Maybe CO2 was higher during the MWP as well but the 1800s were cold so CO2 levels of 350 and higher couldn’t be explained by this.”

    Using the real world rather than manufactured global temperatures it can be seen that the 1800’s were an extremely variable century with great warmth and great cold-so co2 levels would fluctuate considerably
    This graph from Hadley back to 1660 covers the 1800’s which confirms the warmth almost equal to todays at times (two out of the Uks top three warmest winters ever occured in the 1800’s)
    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken_hobgoblin.xls
    This one covers Switzerland from 1850 and again shows considerable warmth.
    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_zurich_uhi.jpg
    According to the highly variable temperatures shown we could have expected co2 readings exactly in the range that have been measured”

    TonyB

  305. Richard M says:

    I see a pattern in the ethanol debate. Since some link it with AGW then it MUST be bad. That is shortsighted.

    I looked at Ron’s first reference and the headline was “Bioethanol’s Impact On Water Supply 3x Higher Than Once Thought”. Sounds horrible, right? However, if you actually read the article it states that ethanol in the mid-west only requires about 40% of the original estimates that the 3x number was based on. Sounds a lot like a typical AGW scare article. Look at the worst case scenario, make that your headline and only give modest reference to anything that disagrees with your view.

    I see ethanol as a first step into some reasonable bio-fuel solutions although I think the subsidies should be phased out. The more recent estimates has ethanol providing a 1.3 going to 1.7 energy ratio. Certainly not good but it’s still positive.

    Finally, one needs to look at the problems with oil many years ago. The fact is we have improved the refining process and engines over 100 years. We are just starting with bio-fuels and we should solve many of the current problems over time as well. Advancing the technology can only help us in the future.

    PS. I’m also a firm believer in “drill baby, drill”.

  306. Roger Sowell says:

    Mark_0454 (11:26:42) :

    “I have wondered what if Ca. was allowed to implement higher emission standards and one of the major car companies simply said “no.” “We’re sorry, but we simply can’t build vehicles to meet those requirements.”

    That is exactly what happened on diesel cars for the past few years. No car company could make a diesel car that met California specs. Only this past November did Volkswagen finally introduce their Jetta TDI.

    California has proposed higher emission standards for gasoline cars, and is waiting for approval from EPA to make them law.

    I wrote on my blog, “Under AB 32, the Pavley standards require 43 mpg by 2016, and 49 mpg by 2020. Pavley standards are the California alternative to the federal CAFE mileage standards, designed to cut CO2 from the California skies. These are not yet law, pending a ruling from the federal EPA. With Obama as president, a favorable ruling is expected any day now.

    The key point is that CAFE standards, and the Pavley standards, apply to NEW car sales, not to existing fleet on the road. Therefore, it is impossible to achieve the 1990 gasoline consumption by 2020, as there is a graduated or sliding scale of increased mpg for each year between 2008 and 2020. The above analysis was based on having the high-mpg cars available in 2009 and every year after that. Clearly, that is impossible.”

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/ab-32-and-gasoline-consumption-by-2020.html

  307. Kum: Ethanol is about 30% Higher than Gasoline in Octane

    Wrong again: Ethanol is like this: C2H5OH
    Octane is like this: CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3
    Any resemblance?

    Once again: That rolly polly out there is fooling you!!

  308. Now, seriously talking; back in 1952 the french magazine “Science et Vie” published the blueprints of a compact electric generator, using a radioactive isotope source. Years after the SNAP series was developed in the USA.
    These could be easily applied to automobiles, but no words about it.

  309. Mike Bryant says:

    “I attended the session anyway, as a member of the public, and tried to shake hands with Gore when he arrived, but his cloud of staffers surrounded him and he visibly flinched when I called out a friendly “Hello” to him.”
    -Lord Monckton

    I don’t know why but as I read this two or three times, I just kept seeing Dracula flinch as he sees Van Helsing invade his castle in Transylvania. Perhaps the bloodsucker has met his match. As Van Helsing said, “He cannot be killed, he must be destroyed.”, figuratively speaking, of course.
    Mike Bryant

  310. D. King says:

    Roger Sowell (11:44:21) :

    Not only are the California standards unrealistic, but the Air
    Resources Board has thrown reduced carbon fuels into the mix.
    They should just set the standard at: 1 bazillion gazillion MPG!
    I wonder if they know how stupid this looks.

  311. hotrod says:

    Ellie in Belfast (10:26:58) :

    Fuelmaker (07:07:48) :
    on ethanol economics – “fermentation does not require any energy”

    Perhaps in homebrew, but at industrial scale it most certainly does. Let

    For 1 tonne corn the energy content is ~19GJ/tonne
    Ethanol Yield ~ 380L/tonne
    Energy content ethanol =23.4MJ/L
    380 x 23.4 = 8.9GJ
    Net Energy Yield only 46% of what you started with and that is before you add the energy used in processing.

    Corn based ethanol is only an interim step in any case, as we are rapidly moving toward 3rd generation processes that will produce ethanol by other means such as algae to ethanol or cellulosic ethanol. These will have much better energy production profiles, and less impact on farm production.

    Regardless, ethanol is already a better deal than gasoline on several counts.
    You quote a net energy gain of 46%, this is certainly better than the net loss in energy from fossil fuels.

    For each unit of energy pulled out of the ground as fossil fuel (oil) you only get .81 of it to your fuel tank. The rest is used up in processing, shipping losses etc. .
    For the same energy input of fossil fuel to ethanol production, you get back at least 1.35+ (2005 efficiencies) and with newer processes that energy efficiency has been increasing continuously over the years.

    energy balance circa 2005
    http://www.ethanolmt.org/images/argonnestudy.pdf
    http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJuly07.html
    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/347.pdf

    Outright efficiencies continue to increase. Likewise water usage being reduced. Many people forget that it also takes a lot of water to process oil too.

    The newer generation ethanol plants are rapidly moving to co-generation or using bio-mass energy inputs. Some burn crop waste or process stream waste in fluidized bed reactors. Some are moving to co-location with their users, so that one process uses the waste stream of the other.

    For example an ethanol production operation co-located near a live stock feeding operation. This allows the wet by products of the ethanol plant to be fed directly to the cattle without drying (saving process energy). The Cattle manure is then used to feed bio-gas digesters to provide process power for the ethanol production.

    http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5107090

    Regardless of above, the farm industry is currently easily able to meet corn demands for ethanol (which uses industrial feed corn not sweet corn used for human consumption).

    The ddgs byproduct produced by the ethanol production actually has more food value than the original corn thanks to the fortification provided by the yeast used in brewing the ethanol. Rather than reducing food value, ethanol production actually increases food value by this means.

    More importantly, everyone forgets that the true measure of energy usage is how much usable work you can get out of the fuel, not its raw energy content.

    As shown above, ethanol already returns more energy than oil by a substantial margin thanks to solar energy captured during the growing of the feed stock.

    If I offered to sell you an “gasoline energy bond” that you paid a dollar for and I promised to buy it back at $ 0.81, or an “ethanol energy bond” that you paid $1.00 for and I would buy it back for $1.36 which do you think you would choose?

    Even though the ethanol delivers more energy to the fuel tank of the consumer for a given energy input in production, there is also the issue of usable work returned for the fuel energy burned.

    In the case of internal combustion engines you also need to consider how much actual usable work do you get out of the fuel energy available. This is often measured by the thermal efficiency of the engine. In this case a typical gasoline powered spark ignition engine delivers about 30% – 35% of the energy contained in the fuel to its crankshaft. In the case of the reciprocating piston internal combustion engine, its thermal efficiency is strongly influenced by the burning characteristics of the fuel.

    High octane fuels that allow high compression ratios and high Carnot efficiency get more useful energy out of the fuel. This is why racing engines try to use high compression engines. In this regard fuel ethanol with a fuel octane near 118, far surpasses common pump premium gasoline with an octane of 91-92 (depending on where you live). The blend E85 which is commonly used in the FFV’s has an official octane rating of 105 although it behaves in the real world more like a 112 octane fuel. This is because the Motor Octane standard uses test procedures that are not appropriate for an alcohol fuel and under rate it.

    So at this point, you have a fuel that returns 1.36/0.81 = 1.679 times the fuel energy for a given fossil energy investment in producing it and getting it to the users fuel tank. You also get a fuel in the tank that allows the engine to operate at higher thermal efficiencies.

    The ideal engine for an E85 fueled FFV is a high compression engine on E85 but a low-moderate compression engine on gasoline. Thanks to the way the CAFE standards are set up, the car manufactures have no incentive to optimize the engine for use of E85. They get the same exact credit regardless of its E85 efficiency. The result is, they optimize the engine to run on gasoline and make it sort of efficient on E85, throwing away the value of the E85 high octane fuel.

    There is a simple way around this problem. Use a small displacement turbocharged engine that uses different boost levels depending on the fuel. That allows you to run the E85 under high effective compression ratios (8:1 mechanical compression ratio but high manifold boost pressure) and at more moderate effective compression ratios on gasoline by turning down the peak boost.

    This has already been done, and works quite well. Many home experimenters are easily beating Detroit FFV fuel economies by making home brew FFV conversions to conventional cars.

    I converted a 2002 WRX to run on E85 or any mix of fuel from full gasoline to E85 using a couple hundred dollars in parts. All I had to do was to have the ability to adjust fuel delivery and boost pressure (it is a turbo charged engine). If driven for economy, I got fuel mileage per gallon on E85 in the low 90% range of my gasoline fuel economy even though E85 only has 72% of the fuel energy per gallon of fuel.

    It does not take a math wizard to understand that that would be impossible unless the engine was extracting more useful work from the E85 than from gasoline.

    When you calculated out the actual fuel energy used to go a mile in my car on E85, it was burning much less fuel energy to go a mile than it did on gasoline. (it also ran much better with substantially better performance if I wanted to “hotrod” it a bit — hence my screen name)

    Here are the fuel energy per mile numbers in BTU/mile I achieved with a very simple home conversion to run E85 in a small displacement turbocharged engine.

    gasoline mileage Gasoline 125,000 Btu/ gallon / 24 mpg = 5208 BTU/mile
    E85 conversion @ 92% of gasoline mileage or 22 mpg
    E85 90,500 BTU/gallon/22 = 4114 BTU/mile

    As you can see, I was using only 78.99% of the fuel energy to go a mile on E85 that I used on gasoline. Add to that, the higher return on energy invested in the fuel vs energy delivered to the fuel tank, and you have a very high return on investment, both monetary and energy budget wise by using E85.

    E85 fuel is inherently a much better fuel for use in a spark ignition piston engine than gasoline on just about every measurement you can make. You can make between 5% and 20% more power for a given engine displacement on E85. You make more power for a given amount or air consumed in combustion (smaller displacement engines do the same job).
    You (if properly tuned) will burn about 20% less fuel energy to go a mile. The E85 engine also has better road manners than an equivalent gasoline engine due to its willingness to pull under load.

    Experimenter conversions to E85 consistently report that in towing applications and on highway cruise control the E85 fueled engines do not lug down like they do on gasoline when pulling hills, because the fuel produces better torque characteristics for the engine. This prevents down shifting in cruise control and drivers modify how they both shift and use the accelerator on E85, because they need less accelerator to get up to traffic speed, and can up shift to a higher gear sooner on E85 than they can with the same engine on gasoline. Cruising in higher gears on the highway yields fuel savings not possible on gasoline. Engines run cooler on E85 so a smaller displacement engine can be pushed harder on E85 than it could on gasoline with out burning it up.

    The performance community is falling all over themselves to run E85 because it is such a superior fuel. They get performance on E85 better than even high octane racing gasoline costing up to $10 a gallon.

    Do not under estimate fuel ethanol, it has a lot going for it, and we would be wise to move toward an E85 based fuel system for spark ignition engines, as our fuel infrastructure builds out 3rd generation ethanol production capability.

    Larry

  312. Richard Sharpe says:

    Someone said:

    That is exactly what happened on diesel cars for the past few years. No car company could make a diesel car that met California specs. Only this past November did Volkswagen finally introduce their Jetta TDI.

    California has proposed higher emission standards for gasoline cars, and is waiting for approval from EPA to make them law.

    I wonder if it is illegal to refuse to register vehicles purchased in other states? How about charging higher registration fees for vehicles purchased in other states?

    CA might simply be sending the message to capable people that they should move to another state.

  313. Kum Dollison says:

    Adolpho,

    NOT wrong, again. Not wrong the first time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

    gasoline octane rating with 10% ethanol 87

    ethanol octane rating 116

  314. Aber says:

    “And this suprises you … Why???”; Said Timebandit; 23 April (23:19:22) .
    Al Gore visited the North Pole by Nuclear Submarine before he became Vice President about 1990, Lord Monckton did not. More at: http://www.oceanclimate.de/, referring to Al Gores North Pole visit as follows:
    “We were crashing through that ice, surfacing, and I was standing in an eerily beautiful snowscape, windswept, and sparkling white, with the horizon defined by little hummocks, or ‘pressure ridges’ of ice that are pushed up like tiny mountains ranges when separate sheets collide. But here too, CO2 levels are rising just as rapidly, …As the polar air warms, the ice here will thin; and since the polar cap plays such a crucial role in the world’s weather system, the consequences of a thinning cap could be disastrous. ” (Gore, Al (Albert), (1992); “The Earth in Balance”, London, 1992.)
    For more see reference link.

  315. Kum Dollison (12:31:38) :
    That is right. Better for drinking!!

  316. Aber: Al Gore visited the North Pole by Nuclear Submarine

    Sure?, not a tale as the internet one? .Check it out, just in case…

  317. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Kum Dollison,
    I do take your point about DGGS; the energy required in drying it (if this is done) is about 30% of the parasitic energy load of the plant. But this is corn and this benefit disappears with lignocellulosic ethanol, grass and other non-food feestocks. The net energy yield remains low.

    TonyB,
    thanks for those outgassing calculations. I’ve also wondered on other threads how much CO2 outgassing a small pH drop in the oceans would cause – but I have not felt up to calculating it.

    Richard M,
    My preference is for biomethane rather than ethanol as a first step to sustainable biofuels for many reasons:
    1) It can be used readily by a number of viable end use options today including transport fuel.
    2) There very many potential feedstocks able produce it; many of these are wastes for which other treatment options, such as composting, consume energy.
    3) The net energy yield is good: up to 70% of the fermentable fraction of feedstocks can be converted to biogas and a 20% parasitic energy load or less is achievable for even very small plants. This is partly because methane as a gas requires little to separate it from water.
    4) There are good future prospects for more efficient clean up and upgrading and for increasing the end use options. For example direct use in fuel cells is possible as catalytic conversions to liquid fuels, although the energy requirement for the latter and the scale at which it is viable is currently very large.

  318. Ron de Haan says:

    Robert van der Veeke (09:01:17) :

    Ron de Haan (14:20:36) :
    Nobody protested the flight-tax.
    The public simply traveled from airports located in Belgium and Germany.
    The only protests came from the Airport Holding and KLM, but only after they were confronted with decreasing passenger numbers.
    Why protest if you have work-around as the ultimate protest, voting with your feet? The fact that Dutch travelers where relocated by travel-agencies and airline operators like Ryan-air is the just one of the reasons that this tax failed.

    KLM, Transavia (also Dutch) and Air Farce protested, and Ryan Air, Volare Airlines, Corendon, El Al Cargo stopped flights from the Netherlands, Easy Jet reduced the number of flights, other organisations that protested: ANVR, MNP, Nederlands Bureau voor Toerisme & Congressen, Chamber of Commerce and VNO-NCW, especially that last organisation is very important since it is the Dutch employers’ federation and they represent some 80% of the smaller companies in the Netherlands and nearly all the larger companies.

    No protests?

    No, not from the Dutch Public, that is what I stated and you can’t argue that.

    By the way KLM = Air France

  319. Caleb says:

    I would definitely pay more for ethanol-free gas, simply to avoid certain problems it causes.

    We had a severe ice-storm in southern NH last December, with many going over ten days without power. People were cursing ethanol by the end, primarily for two reasons:

    1.) As folk sweated to clear fallen trees from roads they discovered ethanol burned out the piston-rings of 2-cycle chainsaws, because the engines ran much too hot. What people began doing was upping the amount of oil that was mixed in the gas. It made for smoky sawing, but at least the saws weren’t burned out so swiftly.

    2.) Gas-powered generators also ran too hot, but the main problem people faced was water-in-the-gas, (or ice, it being winter.) This problem isn’t seen as often in cars, because cars don’t sit around for long periods with the ethanol in their gas tanks slowly sucking humidity from the air. You tend to refill a car’s gas tank quite often. However, in the case of emergency-generators, both the gas in their tanks, and the gas cans out in garages, held corrupted gas.

    I was talking to an old fellow who repairs small engines locally, and he cursed ethanol up, down and sideways. He stated people should replace the gas in gas cans once every three months in cold winter weather, and once every three weeks in the most humid summer heat-waves.

    What occurred here was that, in an ice-storm emergency, when people desperately needed their generators and chain saws, the ethanol made hardships worse.

    The smart solution would be to allow people to buy pure gasoline for their small engines. (Apparently the ethanol dissolves the protective lining in boat’s gas tanks as well, so fishermen also ought be allowed to buy pure gasoline.)

    Of course, law-makers tend to lose touch with the ordinary people who actually deal with the day-to-day details of running this nation. It is for this reason law-makers need to be nagged. You will likely get nothing but a form-letter in return, but I still believe it is worth writing congressmen. How else are they to have more than a vague idea of what is going on in the “real world?”

    Sadly, I feel Al Gore is beyond reach. A million letters can’t penetrate a mind that is firmly closed.

    I can’t claim I’ve figured the fellow out, however I wonder if Al Gore chose, at some point, to willfully distort the truth. There is a huge difference between debating with your fellow man, and purposefully lying to your fellow man. In the former case you are passionate, but are still open to persuasion. In the latter case you fear getting caught in your lie, and “what a tangled web you weave.” The latter case would explain Gore’s refusal to debate.

    Around here I’ve known fellows who, when confronted, will just come out and say, “Oh blast and thunder, I confess: I told a fib. It seemed like a good idea at the time, especially ’cause I thought I’d get away with it. Who would have dreamed a little white lie could turn brown and stink so much.”

    It would be great if Al Gore could be so humble and human, but after winning so many prizes and awards, and charging such huge fees, I doubt his pride could weather such a downfall. So I won’t hold my breath.

  320. Ellie in Belfast says:

    hotrod (12:30:10)
    Thanks for a really excellent post. It is great to have someone who really knows about it arguing for ethanol. I know my figures are out of date – public domain stuff always is. I am inherently biased against ethanol mostly because of the size requirement for economic viability, because smaller scale solutions are required in many parts of the world including my own, but I guess that in 10 years we could could have a more rosy prospect.

    And of course biogas is not perfect either and is definately unattractive because it is a gas.

  321. Roger Sowell says:

    hotrod, you have it all wrong on this one. More energy input for ethanol is required than is obtained as output. Every reputable agronomist and engineer agrees with this. Dreams and wishes do not overcome thermodynamics.

    If any of what you claim is true, then we would never have seen subsidies for ethanol, and ethanol manufacturers’ stock prices will skyrocket. I will watch for that with great interest. (they are falling, and plants are closing). Oil company stocks will plummet, as they can never compete with this wonder-fuel called ethanol. I will also watch for that with great interest. There would also be no reason why Congress (Washington) would have to pass the ethanol mandate, as it would have been the clear winner in the market based on its obviously superior qualities. None of that happened on ethanol’s own merit, so what does that tell us?

    Here is just one article dated April 20, 2009: “US-based Renew Energy announced that it will close its Wisconsin-based Jefferson ethanol plant, after filing for bankruptcy.

    The company, operator of the state’s largest ethanol production unit in Jefferson, is set to shut down come the end of May unless a buyer can be found. The plant’s closure will be signal the loss of jobs for all 80 of its current employees.

    Renew Energy is not the only ethanol producer to go under. The beginning of the month also saw Illinois-based Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings stop in its tracks as the industry’s once-large profit margins are diminishing due to a combination of excess supply and falling petrol prices.

    Across the US the story is much the same as VeraSun, one of the country’s largest ethanol producers with 16 plants in eight states, has also hit the wall and Sacramento-based Pacific Ethanol recently revealed it is struggling to repay its lenders after posting large losses in fiscal 2008.”

    http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=723

    The fact is that gasoline from oil is profitable and energy-efficient, despite huge government efforts to tax, apply environmental cost burdens, and interfere with the market in many ways over many years. Ethanol will never compete straight up, and every knowledgeable engineer knows this.

    As to all the talk on octane of ethanol vs gasoline, please, do not confuse the three octane ratings: Motor, Research, and Road. The numbers quoted above are like comparing apples to oranges to peaches. I blended gasoline in major refineries for years. So much mis-information on this.

  322. Neven says:

    Pardon me, but since when is Lord Monckton a celebrity? It doesn’t surprise me he mentions it himself. He always does go about relating wonderful tales about himself.

    Anthony, do you really endorse Lord Monckton’s views and the way he spouts them?

  323. Robert Bateman says:

    At the rate Ca. is going, the new pioneers will be once again walking over Donner Summit, this time heading East. To thier dismay, the cold will find them just as unprepared as it did in 1848. The visions of global warming will fill thier heads and cloud their reasoning as they struggle in the deepening snows convinced great heat will soon clear thier paths.

  324. Aron says:

    When Al Gore was making his scifi horror comedy scary future vision thing he approached Apple with an offer to promote PowerBooks and iWork software very visually in his erm documentary. In exchange he wanted a position on Apple’s board and a large number of options. He was given both. He was given AAPL at around 10% of their market value and cashed out most of it for a very large profit when he was informed in late 2007 that the banks were about to see some trouble in 2008. And you thought he just wanted to make money out scaring children and creating a market for buying and selling carbon emissions?

    That’s how the muchachos work in them circles.

  325. Robert Bateman says:

    Did it occur to Gore that this feat and same conditions were also found in 1959? Repeatedly? No, what filled his head were visions already planted.
    Let him embark on a mission to the South Pole. He is so convinced of his dogma that he surely will be unstoppable. Great gushing prophetic utterings will carry him like a 1000 butterflies.

  326. Chemist says:

    I found Newt’s testimony to be weak and incomplete. We really need someone to attack the facts of this outright and stand up and say “All of this hysteria is a lie.”

  327. Manfred says:

    @hotrod:

    i agree with your position on ethanol, especially the information about 3rd generation production. i would like to add, that

    – overall corn production in the US increased massively with ethanol production, as there were huge areas of spare land available for additional use. a country like brazil still has such gigantic spare land outside the tropical rain forests, usable for highly efficient, sugar-based ethanol production. this potential could replace oil not only in brazil but also the US.

    – the worldwide deficit in grain production was mainly due to prices stagnating for 30 years, while demand and energy, fertilizer and other cost increased. food prices were too cheap to support a growing production. farms were dying globally, most farmers in the western world will soon reach pension age. prices had and have to go up to incease production. the alternative would be a soviet style agriculture with fixed prices and state run farms – which failed badly.

    – the extremely negative UN report presented by radical left wing Jean Ziegler, however, was obviously written by notorious anti-US, anti-bush and anti-west bureaucrats. why is the UN so anxious to a talk about real threats to global food availability, such as the population explosion in the muslim world – including the rich muslim world – which obviously undermines the thesis, that population explosion can be stopped by fighting poverty ?

    – there is a shortage of liquid fuel for mobility, so even production with no energy gain would be a beneficial.

    – growing food for fuel production can be regarded as building up additional reserves for mankind, In case of food shortage the additional production could be, will be and has been used for the food chain.

  328. Ron de Haan says:

    What Moncton was not allowed to stop now continues based on bribe offers!

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/To-get-votes-Waxman-offers-cap-and-trade-breaks_04_24-43592342.html

  329. Kum Dollison says:

    Caleb, Maine, I believe there may be others, is going toward ethanol-free “premium” gas for the reasons you put forward. They are definitely valid. The small engines, presently, on the market do Not do well with ethanol (several manufacturers, however, are remedying this.)

    Verasun, and Aventine lost a fortune in the commodity market. Verasun shorted corn all the way to the “Top,” and then “locked in” at the Top. I’m not for sure about Renew, or Pacific.

    BTW, several large petroleum distributors have gone bankrupt, also. Does this mean that Oil is a “Bad” business?

    And, statements like This: More energy input for ethanol is required than is obtained as output. Every reputable agronomist and engineer agrees with this. are just hysterical armwaving. They are Not True.

  330. Brendan H says:

    Jeez: “Fact: you previously claimed to be doing something important by using a lot of green energy.”

    I don’t remember claiming to be doing anything “important”. I didn’t create the existing system of energy production, so I see no need to make a sacrifice.

    Addressing climate change effectively requires collective action. When that happens I will comply.

  331. Brendan H says:

    Smokey: “If you’re interested in debating the specific science, point by point…”

    Did I say I was interested in debating the “specific science”? No. I’m interested in pointing out the likely reason for Monckton receiving the cold shoulder in Washington.

    “You run from discussing the central CO2=AGW issue…”

    You’re trying to change the subject again. The article heading this thread is called “Monckton not allowed to debate with Gore today”. I’m staying on topic.

    I’m surprised, though, that your well-honed nose for the ad hom (or more accurately, accusation) failed in regard to the article that heads this thread:

    “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

    So point me to the post where you protest that claim.

  332. Ron de Haan says:

    Manfred (14:08:16) :

    @hotrod:

    i agree with your position on ethanol, especially the information about 3rd generation production. i would like to add, that

    – overall corn production in the US increased massively with ethanol production, as there were huge areas of spare land available for additional use. a country like brazil still has such gigantic spare land outside the tropical rain forests, usable for highly efficient, sugar-based ethanol production. this potential could replace oil not only in brazil but also the US.

    – the worldwide deficit in grain production was mainly due to prices stagnating for 30 years, while demand and energy, fertilizer and other cost increased. food prices were too cheap to support a growing production. farms were dying globally, most farmers in the western world will soon reach pension age. prices had and have to go up to incease production. the alternative would be a soviet style agriculture with fixed prices and state run farms – which failed badly.

    – the extremely negative UN report presented by radical left wing Jean Ziegler, however, was obviously written by notorious anti-US, anti-bush and anti-west bureaucrats. why is the UN so anxious to a talk about real threats to global food availability, such as the population explosion in the muslim world – including the rich muslim world – which obviously undermines the thesis, that population explosion can be stopped by fighting poverty ?

    – there is a shortage of liquid fuel for mobility, so even production with no energy gain would be a beneficial.

    – growing food for fuel production can be regarded as building up additional reserves for mankind, In case of food shortage the additional production could be, will be and has been used for the food chain.

    Manfred,

    You are plain wrong.
    As long as we use food crops for fuel, the fuel price will dictate the food price.
    We have sufficient oil, gas and coal for the next century.

    I think we should concentrate on research for real solutions.

    I have no objections against the Third Generation Bio Fuels based on algae and cellulose (waste material),this is a different story.

  333. Ellie in Belfast says:

    hotrod (12:30:10) :
    I just reread your post and there are a number of points I don’t agree with. My figure was not a net energy gain of 46% but only that 46% of the original total energy (CV) in the corn was converted to ethanol through fermentation. And that is not taking into account the energy used in processing.

    Your figure of +1.35 for ethanol is OK – right order of magnitude, but I would really dispute +0.81 for oil. Even tar sands are generally assumed to yield 3 bbl for 2 bbl of energy expended (that is +1.5)

  334. Just Want Truth... says:

    D. King (11:31:05) :

    Listen again to what he said for yourself :

    “….The Alliance for Climate Protection to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

    He makes more and more money the more we “take on this challenge”. As John Coleman in this video has said Al Gore should be sued for fraud :

  335. Ted Clayton says:

    Neven (13:39:21),

    I Googled “Lord Monckton” in hard quotes, and the 31,700 returns seem to validate his ‘celebrity’ status. Whether he’s as celebritized as say a “Perez Hilton” (5,550,000 returns. gulp), I hestitate to say, but Monckton is certainly widely known & identifiable by the given title.

    Neven, you’ve been trolling your Monckton-bait ’till it’s ready to rot off the hook.

  336. Mark_0454 says:

    Roger Sowell,

    thank you for the reference. It was interesting.

    I hadn’t thought of the diesel. But with a diesel, we are talking about a car not many people want. I guess I was wondering what would happen if say Ford just said to California, “…the only cars we can sell here are the Focus and anything smaller.” Would we see people hanging onto their gas-guzzling Mustangs longer and longer. Would we see families going out to Nevada for an Explorer (and spending their money there)? Would we see every government worker (contradiction in terms really) coming up with an excuse as to why they need the exemption for an F150, so they can get to work in a snowstorm? What would the dealerships start to do with such a limited product line? It was always my opinion that pretty quickly the milage and emission standards would crack. But, that may be a fantasy. (by the way I am a government employee, so I used an old joke but one I always liked).

    Since this thread is so long but still active perhaps I can ask a question I have had for a long time. Every so often I see these articles about someone running his Rabbit diesel on used french-fry grease. It’s interesting and there are some fun mechanics behind it, but how much french-fry grease is there in the world? I know that it is more of a prototype and a demonstration, but the reporting makes it sound more like we could all soon be driving for free. According to my calculations, there is only enough used grease in the world for about 1 car in 1000. But my numbers are not good.

  337. Merrick says:

    So, Flanagan, why don’t you provide an actual reference to back up the assertion you made regarding Lord Monckton and we’ll all look at it in context and see if your allegation holds water? Isn’t that pretty much what this site is about?

  338. Just Want Truth... says:

    Warming in the earth ended about 10 years ago. Comments about Monckton in this thread ended about 50 comments ago.

    Reply: Yes, please stay on topic, folks. ~ dbstealey, mod.

  339. Ron de Haan says:

    Richard M (11:42:37) :

    “I see a pattern in the ethanol debate. Since some link it with AGW then it MUST be bad. That is shortsighted.”

    No Richard, I disagree with this conclusion.

    We are in for the arguments.

    I have no objections against any fuel if it is produced in a sensible manner and if the use of the fuel in practice is compatible in price (without grants) and if there is no problem with security and vehicle reliability.

    We love the facts, not the fiction.

  340. Chemist: “All of this hysteria is a lie.”….Nope!. This hysteria it´s just that: TRUE HYSTERIA. (As described by Charcot, Freud,etc.)

  341. Kum Dollison says:

    Oh, and Roger. Those were AKI numbers I gave. The same numbers that are put on the fuel pump by your (past) employers.

    We’re Not putting up “apples vs oranges.”

  342. Fuelmaker says:

    Anthony,

    Would you like me to work on a longer piece with some hard data on ethanol production and use? I don’t want to have to repeat myself all the time, but really would like to dispel some of the misinformation. I believe I am uniquely qualified to educate on this. I have worked with distillation design, dehydration design, cogeneration design and operation with landfill gas and digester gas, diesel engine modification to run on 95% gas, dilute acid hydrolysis for lignocellulosic ethanol, and wastewater processing. Anyone want to really educate themselves? Or would you rather pick the sources that fit your already formed opinions?

    Reply: I was ready to say yes until I read the last two sentences. – Anthony

  343. Tomorrow is sunday..why not preparing a good barbecue, burning a lot of coal or wood cuts, to pay a big and renewed homage to our eager for CO2 green planet?

  344. Britannic no-see-um says:

    Monckton radio interview appears to have been posted today at

  345. Richard M says:

    I think the confusion in the ethanol debate comes from the many ways one can look at the situation. Do you ignore the feed byproduct … how is water used … where are the drying costs placed … are the production costs at the farms costed against the ethanol or the feed … as hotrod described, what engine technology is used for the finished product … etc. etc. etc.

    This is why you see large differences of opinion.

  346. Richard M says:

    Anthony,

    Maybe a two-part article with Roger and fuelmaker providing their points of view. I know I have looked for information on this subject several times and nowhere can I find information with the assumptions provided along with the opinion.

  347. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Back on topic, I’ll close by saying that it was Lord Monckton’s Sunday Telegraph articles aboout two years ago that began my quest to understand the science of ‘global warming’ and to change from lukewarm believer to passionate sceptic. So I’d also like to add my vote of thanks, and very much welcome the chance to do so!

  348. Kum Dollison says:

    The American Thinker article was, of course, wrong on about everything, but the one Outright Canard that jumped out at me was the assertion that ethanol was responsible for a 15% rise in the cost of food.

    What the CBO actually said was, “ethanol was responsible for up to 15% of the 5.1% rise in the cost of food. In other words, from 0.5% to 0.8%

    Big Difference.

    If your grocery bill was $100.00 it became $100.50, to $100.80.

    Meanwhile, if you used 10 gallons of gas you probably saved about $3.50.

  349. Ron de Haan says:

    If Moncton had been allowed allowed to testify, Schwarzenegger did not have to find new ways to reduce CO2:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/459/Schwarzenegger-touts-airdrying-your-clothes-for-6-months-to-save-700-pounds-of-carbon-dioxide

  350. Fuelmaker says:

    Anthony,

    My sincere apologies to you personally. I didn’t proofread my earlier post well enough to notice that with the salutation, you might interpret that as a personal attack. I love this site and find it to be one of the few that really let comments of differing opinion have their say.

    My comment was directed at the people who repeatedly post without seeming to really ask a question ar answer one directed to them. For example, after mentioning that fermentation does not require energy, someone tried to correct the statement with an ignorant total energy calculation that was totally beside the point. And there are a lot of people out there who just want to point to irrelevant ecologist studies about all sorts of tangential energy inputs to prove that more energy is used than produced, which is beside the point because ethanol is a very valuable liquid fuel and if you can make it with coal or biomass, that is a good thing because I can’t buy a stanley steamer that runs on coal.

    I can also educate on the volatility, octane value, stability, water susceptibility, and compatibility with older engines.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  351. Ron de Haan says:

    According to this article, a ground breaking technology has been developed to process CO2 into methanol.

    http://www.gizmag.com/research-carbon-dioxide-methanol/11483/

  352. Roger Knights says:

    “Former U.S. Vice-President urged lawmakers to overcome partisan differences and take action to reduce greenhouse gases, calling the climate issue the most important ever put before Congress”

    Therefore it makes him feel significant to be a crusader for that cause. I think the attraction of this feeling of significance accounts for half the AGWAns’ motivation. It makes them feel important. If CO2 is not a threat, they feel diminished. So they cling to their alarmism.

  353. paul maynard says:

    Anthony Re Ethanol

    I think Fuelmaker is right. Why not start a new thread on this very subject.

    In passing for any British readers

    1 Visit the No 10 website for an interesting petition
    2 If you near London on 20th May, I am organising a session with Prof Bob Carter at 11:00. Limited numbers.

    My e-mail is pmaynard@pmaynard.plus.com

    Regards

    Paul

  354. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Fuelmaker (17:01:04) :
    I for one would be very interested in the piece you suggest and to change my mind or at least show that it is more open on ethanol than my posts suggest. A lot of the arguments here, generally, arise because comments are necessarily short and not set in context or able to include all the assumptions and provisos. Also there is so much traffic here that comments are read quickly and frequently misconstrued.

    If you note the hanging word “Let..” in my (10:26:58) comment, I accidently hit the enter key early in writing the comment so the rest of my statement is missing – I let it go. I intended to say: “Obviously as a biological process fermentation happens naturally and does not need energy per se but it is misleading to say that as you cannot divorce the process from the energy required to ‘run’ it in an industrial context.” It is clear from the rest of your comments that you would understand that and I should not have jumped on the statment.

    My “ignorant total energy calculation” is relevant because whatever choices we make for future fuels, those choices need to be as high as possible in energy conservation and efficiency from well to wheel (or field to wheel). I am aware, personally, of several non-public-domain research efforts to increase that efficiency for ethanol. That is where my data comes from. That research and the current push to give us future options would not be happening at anything like the same intensity without the incentives and subsidies which in turn are there because of AGW. AGW also has dictated that we need “irrelevant ecologist studies about all sorts of tangential energy inputs” to look at the ‘lifetime carbon balance’.

    Fossil fuels have been (and will be) around for a long time. If we had gone down an ethanol and peanut oil route at the time Ford and Diesel concieved their engines, the efficiences and processes for biofuel production now would be mature; our agricultural landscapes, fuel production and whole economies would be very different.

  355. Fuelmaker says:

    Thanks Ellie,

    I think we are more in agreement than not. Like I said in my first post, we need to educate and refer, not snipe. I am very wary of any “study” that “finds” that a whole industry is not what we think. These always have an agenda, and it is always the same–I envy your success and I want some for myself.

    Biofuels will never be more than a niche fuel in the Industrialized world, but they can certainly help.

    I would be happy to collaborate with Roger on this as well. It is true that there is a lot of fossil fuel used to produce ethanol when you consider fertilizer, harvesting, and transport of the feedstock, especially for plants that were built to take advantage of a poorly conceived government subsidy (all of them ). The elite ignorant idealists out there should be warned that biofuels can not solve the problem. This includes the dreamers that think that switchgrass and algae will have a breakthrough and save the day, and they can continue to ignore more urgent problems like declining US oil production.

  356. Harry says:

    Back on track…

    Dont the Democrats have a point in dis-inviting Monkton in that he had only just a month ago had already testified?

  357. Merrick says:

    Harry,

    … and how long ago had Gore testified? January? So what? Are frequent appearances to testify only useful if you have the “right” thing to say?

  358. hotrod says:

    Anthony I would also like to see a thread on fuel ethanol to allow proper discussion of the misinformation surrounding the fuel. You have my permission to share my email with fuelmaker if it would facilitate that goal. Fuel ethanol is mired in the same sort of misrepresentation and misdirection that the AGW agenda shows. Much of the “common knowledge” about it, is either out right wrong, or is a skillful misrepresentation of a partial truth to lead to an unsupported conclusion.

    I have no wish to crap up this thread with more of this discussion as the primary topic of Lord Monkton is too important to get side tracked on this tangent.

    Larry

  359. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Stefan (04:07:13) :

    It is not about whether global warming is perfectly right. It is about whether global warming is even half right.

    The concept that Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming is not even wrong – it’s that bad.

  360. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Lucy Skywalker (09:30:25) :

    BobW in NC (07:00:53) : Could/would Lord Monckton provide WUWT with a post of the presentation he was going to give before congress, complete with any illustrations? Even better, a link to a You Tube interview…
    I second that

    Neven (08:39:11) : Come on, this blog is moving in the right direction, don’t spoil it all by mentioning Monckton in your articles… As for Morano: Please go beyond being Morano’s errand boy. You’ve got something going here.

    Can someone please tell me the name of this particular tactic?

    It’s an attempt at diversion.

    The structure is as follows.

    [1 - initial condition] Person A does not like what Person B is doing, but has no control or coercive effect over Person B’s actions. I.e. Person A is in a tactically weak position.

    [2 - appeal to other action to avoid loss] “Come on, this blog is moving in the right direction, don’t spoil it all by mentioning Monckton in your articles”. The loss is to spoil the blog.

    [3 - appeal to other action to avoid implied ad-hom] “As for Morano: Please go beyond being Morano’s errand boy. You’ve got something going here” The ad-hom is the “errand boy” remark.

    [4 - appropriate response] – Ignore it, stick to your guns. Person A is in a tactically weak position and is at most only threatening an Ad-Hom attack.

  361. Cade Foster says:

    Dear readers,

    This stance by the Goracle was the final straw. I suspected the Democrats/Gore at being something but was not sure.

    My suspicions are now vindicated, being

    Al Gore and the Democrats are FASCISTS.

    From my trustworthy Chamber’s Family dictionary, “Fascism” is defined as:

    “The principles and practice of those who believe in a strong centralised government similar to that in Italy from 1922-1944, with suppression of all criticism or opposition.”

    While recent history has shown that both Democrat and Republican parties have tended toward bigger government (opposite to Ron Paul’s (etc.) stance), it is the strong suppression of the anti-Gore voices (e.g. Lord Monckton, NIPCC, etc.) which I have characterised as particularly “fascist”.

    Let’s not forget,
    “Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream.
    If you control carbon you control life.”

    From:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/ny_climate_conference_journey.html

  362. jon says:

    George E. Smith (15:34:46) :

    “”” jon (05:03:17) :

    If he worked for Thatcher … no wonder :) She stated that leaded gasoline posed no health risks to people in the UK and that there was no need to remove lead from the fuel. “”

    So name any three people you know about or have read about who were harmed by tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline.

    Do you have any idea how many people have been born, and lived full healthy lives on this planet during the time that leaded gas was in use in automobiles.

    George: time for you to do some research!!!

  363. David H. Walker says:

    Lord Monckton’s statement to my apology for Congress’ bad behavior:


    Dear Mr. Walker – Many thanks for your kind apology. The First Amendment to your Constitution does seem to have taken a bit of a battering at the hands of the less than democratic “Democrats” today. As you say, their terror at the thought of letting me testify is a tacit admission that Gore’s pseudo-science is no basis for bankrupting America and flinging millions into unemployment and poverty. – Monckton of Brenchley

    —– Original Message —–
    From: “David Walker”
    To: “Lord Monckton”
    Subject: An apology
    Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:54:04 -0500

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    On behalf of my fellow Americans, I apologize for our “liberal” politicians’ refusal to grant you the full opportunity to humiliate ManBearPig, aka Albert Gore. Obviously, they live in a state of fear that their agenda is suffering exposure, and that you are the point-man for triggering their mudslide into deserved obscurity.

    It’s become quite obvious, even to the climate fear-mongers, that the global warming context is about making Albert Gore even richer by act of Congress. Why isn’t Gore’s behavior considered climate crime? After all, he’s hawking fear of destruction due to a non-problem.

    Again, my sincere apologies.

    Sincerely,

    David H. Walker

  364. Nigel Crew says:

    I think that those contributors on this website who are expecting a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion to AGW scepticism from mainstream politicians, the media, and an organised and vociferous green lobby will have a long wait indeed.

    AGW is politically correct, and has a powerful “feel good” factor for genuinely concerned citizens who believe that only part-filling their kettle and paying for a plastic carrier bag at the supermarket is in some way changing the weather and ‘saving the planet’. The alarmist perceptions are built on anecdotal stories and are in little need of any corroborating evidence, including rising global temperatures.

    To its supporters the campaign is all good as it creates environment awareness. To a degree this is correct. The problem lies in the law of unintended consequences – for example, burning rain forests in Indonesia to produce bio-fuels that are neither green or particularly effective as fuels. Bad energy and environmental policies based upon good intentions remain bad policies.

    Ironically, the logic of the universal C02 free power leads inexorably to nuclear power and not wind farms. Maybe they should re-badge the old ‘Nuclear Power – No Thanks’ as ‘Nuclear Power – all is forgiven’.

  365. David Segesta says:

    You may or may not like Michael Savage, but you can hear Christopher Monckton’s interview at Savage’s website;
    http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614

Comments are closed.