Monckton, forensically shown to be wrong; he does not show a grasp of how science operates, referring to old data when new data is available, cherry picking, and the information he provides is pretty well completely wrong. The “science” that Monckton provided (including from Lindzen) was forensically pulled apart.

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/

The clip shows comments made by Monckton, and then, what science actually says.

Here go again with Witless pontificating his stulidities once again.

Witless tell me the latest data on
DTR
OLR
Surface Temperatures
Artic and Antarctic ice expansions
Sea levels

I don't want your usual detail nitpicking, anything that relies on modelling, or limited unproven personal experience

Just address tbe above issues with actual data. They after all are the things climate terrorists used to claim as evidence of global warming.

If you cannot just say so and go sit in the dunces corner with turney, Gore, Flannery, tbe fools from Hadley, Rudd, Gillard, Shorten and now Kerry.

halduell, there are actual figures giving the current sea levels around Miami Beach, now and in the past. I won't tell you what they are, because researching them on the web will be a valuable exercise for you. It may help you shed some of that excessive credulity.

Dear Jon J,

Was just looking at some tide figures so I can help him out.

Here you go halduell. Just zoom into Florida. As you can see the changes are pretty moderate, around 2-3 mm per year. If you zoom out a touch you will see far more dramatic rises in places like Texas. The global picture throws up some significant rises and drops even between gauges close to each other.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

The overall trend is of course up as explained by our CSIRO.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

The link above has some great little time lapse sequences.

Enjoy.

Deniers talk about fraud, its something that Monckton raised a number of times in the clip I give a reference to below. Monckton raised a particular case; but, in the end the tables were turned on the person pressing the charges post date of clip.

Another case was pushed in a New Zealand court suggesting fraud in relation to increase in temperature. The scientist involved was taken to court. The exercise back fired on the deniers:
" After an appeal that was withdrawn at the last minute, late last year the NZCSET was ordered to pay NIWA NZ$89,000 in costs from the original case, plus further costs from the appeal." From:

http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

There are absolute facts about what is happening:
.The ice sheet in the Arctic region has been melting, in 2012 there had been 80% loss of volume compared to when there had been full cover.
.Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates
.CO2 is now about 400 ppm as measured at Hawaii.
.Acidification is happening in oceans.

Just saying these matters are wrong doesn't alter the fact that these things are happening. Its for scientists to sort out by continuing to collect data and ask questions as scientific method requires.

Ask yourself something not relating to climate science at all; do you believe in Higgs Boson? Some quite new science. Being something very new, there are a couple of peer reviewed papers. It is impossible to know through commonsense whether Higgs Boson is right. Just like we need to accept the notion of atoms electrons etc. The non scientist has to believe what the scientists are saying.
With climate science there are thousands of peer reviewed papers; it is the science that is reviewed not the scientists.

Steele, you are right, you did have a fact in your post. I did not acknowledge it because it was not relevant.
I did not go to the Court record in the Mann case, I relied on an article:

“The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.”
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html

Do you ever intend to say anything relevant to why you support the AGW fraud in the absence of any science to justify your position? Try to understand that the truth from someone supported by the Heartland Institute is still the truth. You seem to have trouble with the basic concept that if there is no justification for your assertion, you should reconsider it.

Your resentment of the Heartland Institute for promotion of the truth was really not worth raising.Your support of liars like Obama and Kerry tends to further discredit you.