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

Apr 24, 2009 | Posted by: The Truth Matters | Full story: www.climatedepot.com

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Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.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

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) 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 from the airport Thursday evening.

Comments
1 - 20 of 1,234 Comments Last updated Sep 12, 2012
First Prev
of 62
Next Last
JRS

Muskego, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Al Gore will be viewed by history as a lying buffoon. And the Democrats will just lie again to cover the multitude of previous lies.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”-

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

6

6

5

This is open debate? What are they so afraid of? They say science is on their side, science is debate and demonstrated proof. Sounds more like a witch trial, to me.
Allen

Canandaigua, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

The Truth! Thats What!
Brian_G wrote:
This is open debate? What are they so afraid of? They say science is on their side, science is debate and demonstrated proof. Sounds more like a witch trial, to me.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

This pdf document is written by Monkton, why don't you download it and read at you convenience.

http://www.itssd.org/Issues/ChristopherMonkto...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Makes you wonder what they are scared off. Of course Gore has power in the far left enviromental groups.
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
This is open debate? What are they so afraid of? They say science is on their side, science is debate and demonstrated proof. Sounds more like a witch trial, to me.
Hmm. Maybe a repeat of some of his loonier rantings. Like.

"Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic: In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that"

"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult")."

or how about
"The ‘global warming’ debate is not really a debate about climatology - it is a debate about freedom. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction among the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever."

I think his credibilty on pretty much any science is limited and he is a bit of a 'loose cannon' that would pretty much distract from any meaningful dialogue. I just have to wonder, if he weren't one of those wondrous English titled loons would he be allowed out in public?
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
This pdf document is written by Monkton, why don't you download it and read at you convenience.
http://www.itssd.org/Issues/ChristopherMonkto...
Perfect. It is really good for a laugh.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Allen wrote:
The Truth! Thats What!
<quoted text>
The Democrats are afraid of the truth about global warming.

What cowards they are!
Allen

Canandaigua, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The Republicans have over 700 Scientists who Do not believe Global Warming is Man Made. But we never hear about them. We only hear the numbers that believe it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

The Global Warming Alarmists say it is proven Science yet Proven Scientists Disagree. So who is right and who is wrong. But then in the 70's we were being told that we were heading to another Ica Age and "Global Cooling" was the scare words then!
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Allen wrote:
We only hear the numbers that believe it.
Oh, you mean the scientists that actually STUDY climate science ( bieng climatologists) and thus have some knowledge of it?? IF ignorant opinion counted, those 700 might matter. But with no facts, no papers, and no credibilty in the climate field, they carry about as much weight on AGW theory as you do. None. P.S.

"Dittoing" the hypocritical right wing 'fogarithms' will not get you any credibility either.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean the scientists that actually STUDY climate science ( bieng climatologists) and thus have some knowledge of it?? IF ignorant opinion counted, those 700 might matter. But with no facts, no papers, and no credibilty in the climate field, they carry about as much weight on AGW theory as you do. None. P.S.
"Dittoing" the hypocritical right wing 'fogarithms' will not get you any credibility either.
Oh, you mean like James Hansen - astronomy [not climatology] or even Arrhenius - electrochemistry [meteorology was just a hobby]. It works both ways.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean the scientists that actually STUDY climate science ( bieng climatologists) and thus have some knowledge of it??
Yes, the scientists who have the most to gain personally and career wise if the public believes their theory about global warming.

The scientists who can look forward to unlimited research grants to spend however they please if they public only believes global warming is real.

It seems that everyone on the left is scheming to turn this issue to their personal advantage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

No problem, no funding.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Truth Matters wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean like James Hansen - astronomy [not climatology] or even Arrhenius - electrochemistry [meteorology was just a hobby]. It works both ways.
You CALL yourself "The Truth Matters", You SAY "The Truth will set you free", but you lie.

Hansen got his MS in astronomy, but his PhD is in physics, and he has been adjunct professor n the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University for some time now.

That gives him MORE than enough qualifications in climatology.

As for Arrhenius, AGW was still only speculation back then. It became a scientific hypothesis and then a theory only later.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Allen wrote:
The Republicans have over 700 Scientists who Do not believe Global Warming is Man Made. But we never hear about them. We only hear the numbers that believe it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
The Global Warming Alarmists say it is proven Science yet Proven Scientists Disagree. So who is right and who is wrong. But then in the 70's we were being told that we were heading to another Ica Age and "Global Cooling" was the scare words then!
They are not "proven scientists". On the contrary: many of those 700 have been exposed as having no qualifications in climatology at all.

As for the 70s, how often must we repeat it?

"The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling."
(from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi... ).
Allen

Canandaigua, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OK let me get this right, because they don't agree, they are not proven scientists while those who are.

You so full of it. You have no open mind to seeing anything but your narrow view! Sad because you won't even look at anything that may be real and you choose to listen to a narrow point of view. If you were a follower of Jim Jones, You'd be drinking the Kool Aid also!

And I suppose Al Gore is an Expert Also!
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not "proven scientists". On the contrary: many of those 700 have been exposed as having no qualifications in climatology at all.
As for the 70s, how often must we repeat it?
"The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling."
(from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi... ).
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Allen wrote:
OK let me get this right, because they don't agree, they are not proven scientists while those who are.
Not what I said at all. You are twisting my words to cover up your own lack of coherent argument.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not "proven scientists". On the contrary: many of those 700 have been exposed as having no qualifications in climatology at all.
As for the 70s, how often must we repeat it?
"The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling."
(from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi... ).
Hansen has no more qualification to comment on climate science than many of those scientists that are skeptical of the whole AGW by CO2 crowd.

Do these skeptics have any different credentials than Hansen?
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson
UN IPCC PhD environmental physical chemist Dr. Kiminori Itoh
Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke
US Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA
US Government Hurricane Researcher and IPCC lead author Chris Landsea
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni
Meteorologist Hajo Smit
Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado
Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr [and Jr]
I could go on...

It seems that any one of these scientists has just as much claim as anyone on the pro-AGW camp to speak knowledgeably about whether or not CO2 is the main driver of climate - YOU just happen to not like it and it shows that you are only a blind religious zealot that will not allow a single fact to intrude upon your mindless zeal.

The facts are against you yet again.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The genius fascists in the Democrat Party will not allow a single voice to speak out against their agenda and try to tear down anyone who tries to speak against them. They are scared that their lies will be shown to the American people and their schemes will come crashing down.

Al Gore won't debate anyone because he would immediately prove he is an utter idiot. Every AGW proponent who has tried to debate a skeptic scientist has LOST. It's no wonder they won't debate or even let a skeptical scientist be heard.

With idiots like Henry Waxman around we should all be scared out our wits. This man is too stupid to be in Congress.

Henry Waxman:

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

What a moron.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Truth Matters wrote:
<quoted text>
Hansen has no more qualification to comment on climate science than many of those scientists that are skeptical of the whole AGW by CO2 crowd.
Do these skeptics have any different credentials than Hansen?
Yes. Not that you told enough in this post to see it. The difference is that Hansen was also head of NASA Goddard Institute and has actually published in climatology in peer-reviewed journals.

Yet whenever I CAN find the data on people on YOUR list, I find that they either:

1) are not atmospheric scientists nor climatologists or

2) no one will publish their papers -- because they are bunk

The latter is the case with your Keen, for example.
I could go on...
You could, but it would be pointless. Come to think of it, it was pointless even to start.
It seems that any one of these scientists has just as much claim as anyone on the pro-AGW camp to speak knowledgeably
No, it only seems that way if you don't look too hard. But of course, since you ARE a deceiver, you DO want to fool us into not looking too hard, just like a prestidigitator.

Let's look a little harder, for example at the case of Keen.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/cli... says of Keen:

"Apparently not finished with destroying any credibility he may have ever had as an academic, Keen goes on to make the absurd claim that the name of the phenomena “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” to disguise this supposedly inexplicable recent cooling."

The criticism is just: Keen IS misrepresenting the history of the two terms.

But wait! It gets worse! MUCH worse!

"Having discredited himself beyond all question Keen then ventures into misrepresenting the facts to make political points. He attempts to credit the virulently anti-science Bush administration with having achieved CO2 reductions that are in fact a consequence of disastrous economic policies. This is followed by an equally flawed and misleading analysis of Kyoto, and then falsely crediting Bush with causing normal fluctuations in sea level."

This is flaky beyond belief. No, if Keen is the best you can do, you have NO support on your side.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 62
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••