Lord Monckton and Greenpeace Campaigner at U.N. Copenhagen Conference

8 Comment(s)

1. This woman is living proof that someone can be presented with FACTS, yet still refuse to accept the reality that she been brainwashed into believing something that is completely untrue. It’s part of a process called “Ideological Subversion”.

   We were forewarned that this would happen (exactly as it is playing out in front of our eyes right now) back in the 1980′s by an ex-KGB officer, Yuri Bezmenov.

   Watch this disturbing and enlightening interview segment (it will sound VERY familiar),

   There was also an excellent recent American Thinker article on Ideological Subversion and Mr. Bezmenov (well worth your time!).

   Painesright | Dec 13, 2009 | Reply

2. Monckton is such an idiot. How can he grill the conscientious campaigner on the science when he doesn’t have much of a clue about the science himself.

   Oreskes survey shows that by far there is scientific consensus on this issue. Monckton who doesn’t even have a degree should not be debating the science of climate change, or for that matter grilling people on their understanding of the science.

   Steve | Dec 14, 2009 | Reply

3. Steve,

   That’s called ad hominem. Weak.

   Also you mix in the same type of reasoning used by the Catholic church during its heyday to justify keeping people from reading and gaining their own understanding of the Bible. So scientists to you are like a priesthood?

   If you didn’t notice, the woman, however well meaning, has forsaken her own reason and individual thought. She was clueless as to any of the science and unable to defend even one position even though she said she believed it all, and even believed in it enough to travel to Copenhagen to stump for Greenpeace; an organization which just last August had to admit they had been exaggerating the situation with Artic ice. At one point she even uses the term “faith”. This behavior is problematic for me whether the gatekeepers be priests, politicians or scientists, and it should be for everybody.

   And for the umpteenth time – consensus means diddly-squat in science. Do I have to go into the number of times outsiders, those working on the margins of mainstream science were the true groundbreakers – often while being harshly criticised by those holding on to the “consensus”?

   Rick

   RickC | Dec 14, 2009 | Reply

4. Al Gore doesn’t have a degree in climate either, and you listen to him don’t you? Where’s your integrity?

   Wayne | Dec 14, 2009 | Reply

5. Steve,

   Consensus science is not science.

   However in examining the 2004 Orsekes Science paper on its own merit, we find that her survey has been refuted numerous times now. Her paper claimed to have searched for the words “global climate change” among 928 “abstracts” to “articles” covering a period from 1993 to 2003. However, Benny Peiser of John Moores University found that the number of abstracts of papers during this period totals only 905. In using the same criteria as Oreskes, Peisner found that there were actually 1,117 documents and that less than half of the papers she included addressed global warming. Peisner then found that there were only 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorsed the “consensus view.” Incidentally, Science refused to publish Peisner’s letter refuting Oreskes paper. (Here also is Peisner’s web site.)

   Similarly, in his paper published in Energy and Environment, Klaus-Martin Schulte examined the 528 papers on climate change that were published from 2004 to 2007, and he found that only 7% (38 papers) explicitly endorsed the “consensus view,” 48% were neutral, and 6% rejected the consensus view outright. And of the papers, only a single one made any reference to catastrophic effects. Hence, the “consensus view” by the IPCC of a “90% likely” man-influenced effect is false. Indeed, the only portion of the IPCC report that makes such claims is the summary which is written by non-scientists.

   The fact that Science published her paper in the first place further speaks to the sloppy and highly politicized depths to which the AAAS has stooped when it comes to peer review regarding climate science issues. Indeed, here is their December 9th Policy Alert denying any relevance of the Climategate revelations:

   The scientific community has begun to issue responses to the e-mail controversy. The AAAS Board of Directors released a statement on December 4. AAAS CEO Alan Leshner stated, “AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science.” Twenty-five climate scientists sent an open letter to Congress stating, “The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.

   David Theroux | Dec 14, 2009 | Reply

6. Hope that’s not ‘cruel’ fur she’s wearing.

   Michael | Dec 14, 2009 | Reply

7. Wonderful interview – 20/20 hind site, I am curious how she would react to know that the founder of Green Peace (Patrick Moore) quit because they radicalized around political agenda – science was secondary.

   Tom Martin | Dec 15, 2009 | Reply

8. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!!!

   Ivan J. Coffin | Dec 15, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment