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 Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.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.
Al Bore discusses with nobody.
This is starting to sound like a siege mentality.
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
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.
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.
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!
“Open mind”. That’s a good one. The comparison to religion is very apt.
[no profanity or insulting other poster please] ~ charles the moderator
[hmm…I think all your posts will likely be deleted given this pattern of profanity] ~ charles the moderator
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
AGW is “Al Goreical”
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.
As a non-scientist, I find Christopher Monckton’s incisive summaries indispensable.
I just wish he wouldn’t use such lurid graphics.
“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
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…
At least with Chris Monckton, everything he says is “Peer reviewed”!
It is not about whether global warming is perfectly right. It is about whether global warming is even half right.
Same reason Dawkins wouldn’t debate creationists
Always difficult when they’re not open to rational argument…
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.
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
This is great triumph for Lysenko science.
What’s next, compulsory intelligent design education in schools?