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 Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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 🙂 )
“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?
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.
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”.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Sorry about getting “carried away,” Anthony.
I’ll quit, now. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
“….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?
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.
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.
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.
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
LMAO!
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…
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.
*************************
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!
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.