We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Lord Monckton visited rural areas with support of independent MPs

Press Release by The Climate Sceptics President - Leon Ashby

The World's best known Climate Sceptic, Lord Monckton will visit five rural towns in coming weeks.
These include
  • Ballarat, 
  • Traralgon, 
  • Mt Gambier, 
  • Wagga Wagga and 
  • Griffith
Many people in these communities have asked for him to visit, so organisers (The Climate Sceptics) have been able to squeeze a number of meetings into his schedule.
The visits to Traralgon and Griffith will be especially interesting as to the reaction of locals as the livelihoods of many are going to be impacted via the carbon tax and the Murray darling basin plan - both ideas stemming from climate change alarmism.

In Adelaide SA Independent MP Anne Bressington has sponsored his event while newly sworn in  DLP Senator John Madigan will share the platform with Lord Monckton at Ballarat, Wagga and Griffith.
Both Anne Bressington and John Madigan are firmly against  the carbon (dioxide) tax and sceptical that CO2 will overheat the planet as claimed by the Government.

The rest of Lord Moncktons scheduled tour is below:

18 July 7.00pm   Ballarat   St Patricks Pavillion, Ballarat Vic (bookings 0435 423 636)  * (DLP Senator John Madigan speaking also)


19 July  Canberra National Press Club debate 12.30 pm start ABC TV, Sky News


20 July  12.00pm  Lunch/Presentation, 401 Collins St, Melbourne (Book with Gary Morgan ph 03 9224 5213)


20 July   7.00pm Alma Sports Centre, 1 Wilks St Caulfield North, Melbourne, bookings Ticketek


 21 July   7.00pm   Traralgon Town Hall, Traralgon Victoria (bookings 03 5176 3559)


22 July  7:00pm  Jim Deans Function Room, South Adelaide Football Club, 1 Lovelock Dr, Noarlunga Downs, SA (bookings 0435 423 636) *(sponsored by Anne Bressington MP)


24 July  2.30 pm flight to Mt Gambier 7:30pm  Mount Gambier Sportsmans Club, Cnr Wilson & Commercial St West, Mount Gambier, SA (bookings 0435 423 636) *(sponsored by Anne Bressington MP)


25 July  1 pm Alma Sports Centre, 1 Wilks St Caulfield North, Melbourne, bookings Ticketek


25 July 7.00pm , 23 Melverton Drive, Hallam Vic ("Catch the fire" church building) no bookings (organised by Rise Up Australia Party)


26 July  7.00 pm Wagga Wagga Comfort Inn function room, Cnr Morgan & Tarcutta Streets (bookings 0432827254)(DLP Senator John Madigan speaking also)


27th July  2pm Griffith, Gemini Hotel, 201-207 Banna Ave, (Bookings 0435423636)(DLP Senator John Madigan speaking also)

Contact

 Leon Ashby

Ph 0435423636

12 comments:

  1. You may be interested in this informative peice on Not-A-lord Monckton.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/background_briefing_on_monckto.php

    Please consider using the wording Climate change deniers, not skeptics. The Skeptics have quite a different veiwpoint than your organization, as we accept the consensus of scientific evidence. That is, anthropomorphic climate change is very much real.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marius says: "...informative peice..."
    This shows how accurate your attention to detail is, Marius.

    "Not-A-lord Monckton." another inaccuracy from Marius. 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley should be addressed as Lord Monckton according to Debretts.

    Marius, Skeptics? Lack of attention to detail again, Marius.

    Believe me, I would not generally look at Desmear blog, but as you asked so nicely, I read that piece (or should that be peice,Marius?)

    Perhaps for balance you should see
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/this-is-not-journalism-wendy-carlisle/ and
    http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/2011/07/abc-mistakes-lord-moncktons-science/

    And lastly, Marius, in your ignorance you say
    "...anthropomorphic climate change..."

    Look up Anthropomorphic, Marius and see what a complete goose you have made of yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Geoff, just wondering if you could tell me what specifically was my attention to detail lacking in posting that link? Are the arguments presented there less than accurate, in your opinion, and if so, how?

    Re Not-a-Lord. Monckton is not a member of the house of Lords.
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
    What I should have wrote was Not-a-member-of-the-House-of-Lords Monckton. Thankyou for pointing out a possible point of confusion.


    I thank you for pointing out a typo. This is useful information. While on the subject, |i was wondering what the Desmear blog might be?

    Thank you for the links. I will give them consideration.

    You seem somewhat concerned about the term anthropomorphic climate change.
    perhaps you are laboring under the misapprehension that I might have coined the phrase.
    http://tinyurl.com/3kmozhh

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not concerned about your use of anthropomorphic climate change, it just shows your lack of awareness.

    If you look up anthropoMORPHIC in the dictionary you will get:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphic

    an·thro·po·mor·phic
       [an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik]
    –adjective
    1.
    ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
    2.
    resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

    So are you sure you meant anthropoMORPHIC - ascribing human form to Global Warming?

    I gave you a chance to correct your ignorance - in future try anthropoGENIC, or just use a smaller word or two - man-made!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Geoff.
    If it makes you more comfortable, we will stick to "man made" in future. Clearly you have an excellent understanding of semantics.

    So, because I use a word that you find unsatisfactory, does that mean you think my discussion invalid? It is quite apparent what I meant, given the context.

    You may recall I was just wondering if you could tell me what specifically was my attention to detail lacking in posting the deltoid blog? Are the arguments presented there less than accurate, in your opinion, and if so, how?
    Will you be contacting everyone else who has used the term? there are quite a few at the link I provided.

    So, on with the questions I posed you which you must have missed. Understandable, given the urgency to correct my terminology.

    I observe a note of hostility in your replies, Geoff. Have I is some way personally offended you? It would be so much more productive to keep the discussion civil. We are after all, civilized people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marius,

    In your first post, you used the term "Not-A-lord Monckton." First of all the was erroneous and I assumed, maybe erroneously,. that your Upper Case N & A and the lower case l was continuing the slight.

    Secondly you said: "Please consider using the wording Climate change deniers." I have never denied that climate changes. Lord Monckton also has never denied that climate changes. So, why should you call us climate change deniers.

    And then sKeptics - that's US spelling. This is the Climate Sceptics Party blog.

    You say; "..because I use a word that you find unsatisfactory, does that mean you think my discussion invalid?"

    Not unsatisfactory, Marius, inappropriate. You surely don't mean to give human attributes to changes in climate, do you?

    I guess if, like loopy Tim Flannery, you worship GAIA you would be anthropomorphising the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics again, Geoff.
    Perhaps we might consider moving on.

    Here's the thing. I suspect that you are about as qualified in climatology as I am. That is, not at all.

    I am, however, not unfamiliar with the scientific method, and how it is applied.
    When I see the vast majority of the scientific community point towards a consensus of climate change with human activity playing a not considerable part, then I being unqualified in the specific field, tend to think that the science is correct. I don't have the luxury of the many years that it would take to become skilled enough in that specific field. I accept the findings (based on empirical evidence-the scientific method again))of those that have.

    When I board an aircraft, I don't question the qualifications of the pilot because I have a rough understanding of the principles of flight, nor do I question my surgeon because I know where my organs are located. I accept that they have a far superior knowledge of their specialities.
    Why would climate science be exempt from this, in your opinion?

    I don't accept any possible conspiracy theories either. hat is not an accusation, by the way, but it is something I hear regularly. Climate science is in the pocket of big oil/whatever. that is an un-debatable concept due to any evidence against a conspiracy is automatically part of that same conspiracy.

    I was myself a 'climate sceptic for some time, though probably more accurately a climate fence sitter. Not now though. though as a skeptic, if the new high quality data points in the opposite direction, then that is the direction I would be obliged to go.

    I still am interested in what you think the problems with the Deltoid blog piece.
    FYI- (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piece)


    Rest assured, I think the notion of Gaia loopy as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "if the new high quality data points in the opposite direction, then that is the direction I would be obliged to go."

    Now we are getting somewhere. Dr David Evans was with the Australian Greenhouse office (now called the Dept of Climate Change.) David is still a consultant to the Department. He has six degrees and his doctorate. He was a bolted on believer in AGW and then he was presented with new high quality data pointing in the opposite direction.

    As he said: "But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Evans may well have done thus, but he is still very much in the minority.
    He may well be right, but this is the less likely option, given the weight of evidence that has formed the consensus opinion of the scientific community. People such as Evans are necessary. They provide checks and balances for empirical science. They introduce (and often re-introduce ) different angles that are put under the blow torch of the scientific method. The steady flight of an aircraft needs to be trimmed from time to maintain level flight. However, too much will send it plummeting into a spin.

    Not all alternatives in science are given credence, however. There are some "scientists" who suggest that the world is 6000 years old, and that Noah's flood was an actual event.
    Supporting evidence? Nil.

    This is a far more complex issue, however, than simple a delusional belief systems.

    Actions to reduce the production of excess CO2 emission are not a bad thing, regardless of your stance on AGW. Why object to cleaner emissions? Who can it possibly hurt? Certainly not your grandchildren.
    Could you explain if you (as in the climate sceptics) are opposed to implementing cleaner emissions, why that might be? If you could avoid any politics and stick to science, that would be good.

    I observe you have still to address my question on the Deltoid Blog.
    Would you rather not?

    ReplyDelete
  10. G’day Marius.

    “Evans may well have done thus….,”

    Evans did it becsuse the science moved on. The Greenland and Vostok Ice core samples showed that temperature rises precede atmospheric CO2 rises by

    “…. but he is still very much in the minority.”
    “…the weight of evidence that has formed the consensus opinion of the scientific community.”

    Science is not a consensus. Many times individual scientist have gone against the “consensus” and have been ridiculed yet later proved to be right. Galileo was one. Einstein another.

    Closer to home, Robin Warren, a pathologist from Perth and Barry Marshall from Kalgoolie WA were jeered by others for their theory but pushed on and showed the “consensus’ was wrong earning a Nobel prize for their effort. See http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/07/national-press-club-debate-lord.html

    Also, see the petitionproject.org where 31,000 US scientists have signed and later re-signed petition.

    "People such as Evans are necessary. They provide checks and balances for empirical science."

    In fact, people like Evans, Carter, Plimer, use the empirical method to arrive at the conclusion that there is no dangerous global warming.

    “Actions to reduce the production of excess CO2 emission are not a bad thing, regardless of your stance on AGW.”

    CO2 is a plant food and satellite images have shown that world biomass has increased by 6% due to increase in the atmospheric plant food. See http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v13/cowpea.php Actions to needlessly reduce CO2 is stupidity and could lead to stravation in future generations.

    “Why object to cleaner emissions?”

    Only a fool would object to cleaner emissions. Compare our coal fired power plant emissions to China’s.

    “Could you explain if you (as in the climate sceptics) are opposed to implementing cleaner emissions…”

    The Climate Sceptics believe in pollution reduction. CO2 is not pollution.

    As far as Deltoid is concerned, that site has paid correspondents whose sole purpose is to smear people opposed to the falsified hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing runaway warming.

    But to counter that erroneous Wendy Carlisle article see these two responses:
    http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/2011/07/abc-mistakes-lord-moncktons-science/#more-2474

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/this-is-not-journalism-wendy-carlisle/#more-16046

    Truth 100% Deltoid 0%

    ReplyDelete
  11. "As far as Deltoid is concerned, that site has paid correspondents whose sole purpose is to smear people opposed to the falsified hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing runaway warming."

    Do you have any evidence to substantiate this accusation?
    Is it only deltoid, or do you believe that every person/organization with whom you disagree on AGW is a "paid correspondent"?

    Who do you believe to be the paymaster?
    What do you believe to be the agenda of these alleged paymasters?


    By the way, have you heard how Monckton's cure for MS, malaria and HIV is coming along?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8yXZr3DDTw&feature=player_embedded
    I haven't seen it in any medical journals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. G'day Marius,

    Good to see you back again.

    As far ar LM's cures, I have little knowledge. I know that he self-cured and have spoken to a few others who swear that he has cured their ailments.

    I think that if he had a genuine cure for HIV, the world would have heard. However the MSM have their own agenda. This week a paper was published that blew Man-made Global Warming alarmism out the window. Did you see that reported anywhere?

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism -

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hole-in.html


    As far as funding goes, whether deltoid or IPCC or whatever see today's Australian.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!