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 Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.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.
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.
Robert van der Veeke (12:43:54) :
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Hmm, where’s my funding check??
I mean what other blogs have a Viscount posting on
them?!? WUWT rocks!!
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.
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!
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.
“”” 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
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.
[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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?”:
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.
“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!
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.