Now that Monckton has been exposed as a fraud, who's left to represent the global warming denial movement?

I don't understand your question, why would being a fraud and liar disqualify him from representing the denial movement? Sounds like he represents them very well.

Unfortunately my friend, we humans in the west have become accustomed to our cars and the fuel that runs them, our air conditioners, our plastic toys, mobile phones, computers, fossil fuels for our energy and our wealth. etc.

Personal comfort comes first these days - don't worry about the comfort of our diminishing wildlife and fish stocks - of course we all continue to think on a daily basis that all is ok and the world is so big that we couldn't possibly cause the changes that are predicted.

We trust scientists with our lives when we get sick or have an accident. Scientists were key in inventing all of the things that we have to keep us comfortable in our own little world.

Yet now when scientists tell us that we have a major problem on our hands - no one wants to listen to them because it may mean that we have to give up some of our comforts or pay extra for carbon credits or similar.

We will no doubt be giving up comforts and no doubt paying extra for fuel and energy - once the effects of us trashing the Planet start to hit (as it has already in many countries) then the costs will really start to rise - in ways we probably can't even imagine.

I think debate is healthy and it is right to question what is put before us, but now I think it is too late and there is too much evidence to keep denying we have a problem.

The sceptics are threatening the future of my children - It is an urgent matter - so I wish they would all just piss off.

The only part of this that counts is the data. Opinions don't count. What counts is the reason for the CURRENT climate change, not the reasons for warming or cooling in the past. Warming and cooling can happen for several reasons. In our time the reason for ALL of the changes noted comes from the gross amount of man made CO2 and other gases that we've pumped into our paper thin atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age. The sun isn't 'hotter', volcanoes aren't a factor, the continents haven't moved appreciably since the early 1800s and nobody is fibbing about the scientifically collected, peer reviewed data accumulated by thousands of scientists from a hundred countries. We've created in a short historical time frame a robust 'greenhouse effect' that traps heat energy. The results of this effect are explained by straight line heat and atmospheric physics. Why people are afraid to admit that physics don't lie, don't express an 'opinion' and have no politics is a great mystery. I'm certain that the oil and coal folks would like this issue to go away, but even if it did 'go away' the rising heat index and accompanying climate change won't.

Some cranks manage to get paid for being endearing. I think that this one is clever enough to scheme his way into another con. I do not see anyone else being able to make a living by playing the endearing eccentric on this issue however. Michael Creighton managed to get some mileage out of it while he could. Love those space monkeys, they were a hoot.

Exxon

BP

Politicians under the special interest thumb, just as Monckton is.

It's the same 'ol, same 'ol. Whomever will spend the most on disinformation will spook the herd towards the wolves.

Humans are not perfect beings, therefore humans make mistakes, choose to be corrupt, and often mislead others for personal gains...

Thats kind of silly Dana,

By your rational, if you don't like what someone says, you accuse them of perjury. "They obviously lied so nothing they say can be used." You've won the argument by quieting the opposition. That is what you are suggesting.

Furhter I find it interesting that Al Gore's tripe was filled with more crap than Monckton, but you all still defend him.

Is it because you don't care about the truth, you just want your side to prevail?

OTW, while Hathaway's paper did not claim that solar variation played the only role, his paper did state that the role was being overly-diminished. Now if this exagerration is the defnition of a "fraud", then I will accept this definition and say Moncton is a fraud, if you acknowledge that most every representative you have to runaway AGW is also a fraud.

In answer to Antartica,

I find it interesting that a bunch of "scientists" think that <100 years represents a trend in the lifespan of the earth, while billions of years is completely unimportant. What are you? New-earth scientists?

Here is a hint, the earth ahs been around for more than 100 years.

Here in the UK, Monckton is a figure of fun and has long since become an embarrassment to all who are associated with him.

But I think the denialists will apply their usual standards of evidence. There is no such thing as global warming; Monckton's lecture shows that there's no such thing as global warming; therefore Monckton's lecture is,in all that really matters, correct even if it does involve asserting that the moon is made of infrared-emitting cheese.

Having watched the full debate Mockingtone had against Tim Lambert I find it strange anyone believes Mockingtone with meaningless reference to billions of years ago and his attempt to misquote the results of a paper (which Lambert caught him out on with a quote from the actual author of the paper stating Mockingtone had mis-interpenetrated her results. He also seems genuinely surprised when told the author is a woman (but his sexism would be a topic in a different category)

In this debate which is still on youtube it is painfully obvious that the audience are asking denier biased questions many of them can clearly be seen to be asking their questions from pieces of paper and the Moderator is Alan Jones known to most Australians for his far right views. Mockingtone choose Lambert because he is not a climate scientist but an enthusiastic amateur (Lambert freely admits that at the start of his turn)

Mockingtone was clearly rattled when the quote showing him up was produced and in spite of the hostile audience and moderator and Lambert no being a very good public speaker Lambert clearly won this debate. Alan Jones is a solid denier as is easy to hear in this interview he has with Mockingtone held just before the above debate.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanag...

Nothing in this could be called journalism as Jones hands Mockingtone his talking points and even helps with answers several time.

But fairly predictably I think you have the denier reply to this in Jims answer, they will simply disown him and move on to the next theory/conspiracy.

Gosh Jim 6 thumbs down in less than fifteen minutes thanks it always nice to know when I've hit the mark.

You say "Now that Monckton's presentations have been exposed for falsifying data and grossly... blah blah blah"

You are ready to discredit Monckton based on some one else claiming he created charts out of thin air, But you give the Warmers a pass on falsifying data to create the hockey stick graph so often used by Warmers to alarm people who do not think for themselves.

And you say all those leaked emails were "stolen" so we should pay no attention to them even though they reveal that people greatly respected by most all Warmers were busy cooking the data and falsifying results.

"xyz" You're fly is open.

Roy Spencer, I suppose, although I don't know how well his newest twist -- that much of the warming is random -- would fly before Congress. I suspect that his credibility among his peers is lower than ever right now.

In reality, there are no credible people denying man's hand in the warming. That debate is dead. The real debate is how to address it and I suspect that Roger Pielke will become a new familiar voice once his book is released. If I'm right, then this becomes a major step forward as the world fully appreciates the problem at hand and focuses on a variety of potential solutions.