Monckton Replies to Critic
Note: Lord Monckton’s responses are in bold type.
You make statements on your site that it was Al Gore?s party that had not done enough prior to Katrina. You want us to believe your posts yet this glaring error is on your site. G.W Bush was president and GOP party was in power 4 years prior to the event and 4 years after. How was it the Democratic parties fault at all?
There is no error on our part, let alone a “glaring error”. Responsibility for maintenance of the levees that failed when a mere category 3 hurricane struck lay with the Corps of Engineers, under the direction of the local administration in New Orleans, which was and is Democrat-controlled. I have recently inspected the levees and, though some remedial work (of generally poor quality) is evident, the levees are still not being properly maintained.
You also make many statements alluding to Al Gore lying in his move ?Non-Mainstream media? as to say that if other scientist come up with a theory it isn?t valid cause its not part of mainstream science.
On the contrary, we were able to demonstrate – to the satisfaction of a judge in the High Court in London – that there were multiple serious errors not of mere interpretation or “theory” but of fact in Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie; that the errors all tended to invent problems where they did not exist or exaggerate them where they did; and that, therefore, the movie was political rather than scientific. The judge found in our favor, saying that “The Armageddon scenario that [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view”. I wrote the scientific testimony that convinced Gore’s allies in the case that they should concede his film was seriously, serially inaccurate. Had they not made that concession, and had they not agreed to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance, the judge said he would have banned the movie.
There was a time when Albert Einstein’s theories weren?t mainstream either. To say something is a lie cause its not mainstream is misleading to your views the very thing you are condemning Al Gore for doing. I the models he used have faults and somewhere out right wrong.. hind sight is always 20/20 right.
Please refer us to any statement by us to the effect that Gore had told lies. We can then examine that statement and provide evidence for it.
I just find it funny that you would condemn others cause of oversights or exaggerations yet your guilty of it on your site.
Please provide a list of any “oversights or exaggerations” on our website, with references to scientific peer-reviewed papers indicating that the science as we have stated it is incorrect.
A lot of this is perspective and I think you missed the real reasoning behind the movie which was to engage people and governments into looking at what we?re doing to our planet.
The effect of Gore’s movie has been to divert massive funds away from solving real environmental problems – notably deforestation on land, overfishing of the oceans and pollution of the air in third-world countries such as China – towards the non-problem of climate change, which, even if it were a problem, cannot be cost-effectively solved. It is around 50 times cheaper to let the warming happen and pay the cost of focused adaptation to any problems the warming may cause than to try to prevent the world warming in the first place. And there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for almost two decades.
Which for the most part it has other than American nay Sayers most governments have started moving in the direction this planet needs to go in which is away from fossil fuels and pollutants.
Fossil fuels, burned stoichiometrically as they are in the West, are nothing like as polluting as they used to be. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at all, but a naturally-occurring trace gas that was once present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 300,000 parts per million compared with today’s 400 parts per million. Governments are now rapidly moving away from expensive regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Canada, for instance, has joined Russia and Japan in repudiating the Kyoto Protocol, which has now lapsed altogether. Very few countries have joined – or propose to join – the “second commitment period” under the Protocol. Just about the only nations currently committed to taxing CO2 are the EU tyranny-by-clerk and Australia. China, in particular, has announced via the annual statistical communiques of the Peking regime that it will continue to build one or two coal-fired power stations every week until 2030. Accordingly, even if CO2 were a problem (which it is not), the growth in China’s emissions will be dozens of times greater than any cuts we might (futilely) try to make.
But hey that?s just my two cents.
And that’s our two cents. You are entitled to your opinion, but we are entitled to our facts; and, in the end, it is the facts that will prevail. – M of B