Hi Ozbib & arjay.

I watched a very good DVD 'The great global warming swindle.

I especially liked the lecture given by a Canadian scientist. The commentators were all credited scientists. One the founder of Greenpeace that resigned after Greenpeace took on the political stance they have.

Another said he for one, was mentioned by the UN IPCC that he approved
of their report. He did not, in fact the opposite. Threatened legal
action got it removed.

CO2 is one of the lesser greenhouse gases, and water vapour and clouds
are are the largest 90%. Cloud cover keeps the Earth's temperature warmer at night and cooler during the day. Warmth seems to suit most living organisms as frost kills. You will note in temperate regions where frost is likely to occur cloud cover will prevent it forming.

The founder of Greenpeace stated in his opinion the Green faction
are politically motivated. They brought up a case for the undeveloped nations. The climate change believers are trying to undermine
industrialised countries blaming them for something that doesn't compute and disadvantages third world countries. Yet undeveloped countries need electricity to advance.

Gore said Malaria was moving Northwards into colder climates. Not true deaths from it have be noted in Russia and Siberia were millions of people died back in the early 1920s.

The principal point made by the Canadian scientist, was cosmic rays
help create clouds, and sun spots and solar activity result in
in a surge of solar radiation that puts a barrier to divert cosmic
rays from hitting the earth. Hence the planet warms with sunspot activity that seems to suit agriculture and biodiversity. Look I am no scientist, but the DVD did enforce what I know about this climate change scam. And the political motivations including some scientists who are driving this belief. CO2 does not amplify global warming, the sun does!

Monckton is coming to Australia and the cost to attend his and Prof.
Plimer talks is $20.00 Get onto JoNova website and read for yourself

Q & A was asking for suggestions as to what would be better way of doing an IPCC, and I provided 10 imrovements that could be made to the current system.After some reflection there are several more that can be added assuming that he was really interested and not just floating another straw man. These are:

1. No paper can be assessed for inclusion and be part of in the IPCC process if the authers have not complied with the data storage and release requirements of the Grantors, to fully enable their findings to be replicated.

2. Broad scale data collection series such as a countries temperature and rainfall records, should be the responsibility of a separate body to the researchers.ie a complete separation of powers and responsibilities. Hansen being resonsible for the GISS record is not on.

3.Role of new Chairman (to replace Pachauri) and indeed role of Board should be re-defined, and the name of the organisation changed to send the message that things are different.

So that make 13 sensible changes IMO, which if undertaken might retrieve some credibility in the eyes of tax payers and decision everywhere.If they make no changes then they are stuffed.

Let’s see if I have this right.

When the complete tropospheric degradation of, let’s say, the 120 different volatile organic compounds (VOC) occur, these products are in turn degraded, resulting eventually in the products of CO2 and H2O.

Water vapour (H20) is a very significant warming gas, therefore, the more VOC, the more CO2 plus the more water vapour.

The degradation of VOCs contain in excess of 7000 reactions and 2500 chemical species. What the hell are they up to while they’re all mating with each other?

In addition, as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity which amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide which by the way hangs about for >100 years.

Of course, the earth doesn’t care whether you believe the data or not. Data is what scientists call observable phenomena that simply is, but oh Man, reality sure is a hard pill to swallow for the deniers. I mean let's face it - any reputable climate scientist who jumped camp now and became a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry would become an instant millionaire. But they haven't!

The stark reality reveals that all things connect and that we also have the very nasty carcinogenic VOCs - industrial benzene, toluene, methyl benzene, napthalene, xylene etc being stored in our underground drinking water sources and we are drinking them.

Underground hazardous plumes of hydrocarbons from industry have invaded our rivers and oceans. Toxic harbour and river sediments are killing marine life.

The results last year revealed that the Swan and Canning rivers in WA are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons. Mass fish mortalities are unprecedented -far beyond the natural rate.

Therefore, I think Mr Monckton should be engaging in dialogue here to elaborate on the evidence he has to the contrary, and that is that “we should do nothing.” Someone over at Crikey has provided this link published by the Americans:

http://www.alternet.org/story/144990/the_14_most_heinous_climate_villains which claims Mr Monckton is a climate villain. Surely he needs to clear his good name?

With just this short exchange,we can see how ordinary punter is totally confused.Ozbib thanks for the link but it failed to enlighten me.

After the ice core data revealed that CO2 concentrations followed heating by some 800 yrs,out came the theory that CO2 was an amplifier.I thought that they'd discovered some new property of CO2.Hence Grahamy could not understand my questioning.rstuart says that CO2 is now a trigger rather than an amplifer.Has someone moved the goal posts?

I can understand that we reach critical temps in which accelerated amounts of CO2 is released,but for every CO2 molecule, we have 2600 of other molecules that make up our atmosphere.Man has only added 29% of this.Now this gives CO2 a lot of creedence in terms of heating capacity.

The reality big disaster for those of integrity who have faithfully studied the science and believe in AGW by CO2,is that they have hitched their barrow to people who have ulterior motives of absolute power on a globalised scale.These powers under the auspices of AL Gore have grossly exaggerated the threat to gain personal advantage in terms of taxes and carbon derivatives.

Whether you like or hate C Monckton,he is the catalyst that will bring the debate back to an even keel.

We need to get the entire scientific community involved with indpendant finances.The UN,IPCC and their apparatchiks,have failed the test of truth and integrity

I am moved by some ignorant people who post on OLO and suggest that the States are sovereign entities. This presumes that they coexist with a higher power, and that that Higher Power, can without a referendum let them. The ignorance about the Australian Constitution, expressed by even KR and TA, is appalling.

The Highest legislative power in Australia is the Parliament of the Commonwealth, but even that is subject to the checks and balances on absolute power, imposed by Ch III Constitution. Those who are slightly ignorant of the total scheme of things that makes up government in Australia, should check out this website and the statements on the Judicial Power, contained in this link.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

The bloke who wrote this article lifted some comments from Henry Abraham, a professor of law in the United States, some from a judgment of the Late Lionel Murphy when a High Court Justice, and more from Holdsworth’s Commentaries on the laws of England. The English themselves are starting to be rebellious. They gave the Irish home rule in 1922 over three out of four provinces in Ireland, and the Anglican Church, the Church of the oppressive English, lost its privileges, but since, the Irish Catholic Church, now no longer the focus of resistance to the English, has lost its influence too.

In Australia the sixty five percent of the population that is actually Christian, is starting to wake up that the lawyers have conned them. S 116 Constitution is not a licence to be an Atheist, as Mark Latham thought, but in reality is inserted to preserve the Christian System of Government, that characterized English Freedom, since 1297. We thought we would get and were promised a Christian Prime Minister. In 2007 that was supposed to be the result, and 23 seats worked from right to left. We simply got a very wealthy, through his wife, same old same old. We got John Howard’s government under Labor Leadership. Monckton’s visit lifts the debate to a whole new level. Peter Spencer came down. He lifted the debate to a whole new level too

Hi all,

This is my second post in 24 hours. Please Google 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' from there you should be able to get on to the producers official website www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com.uk and then the complete 8 part DVD is available through U Tube.

The website has an index to mull over, before you watch the complete
visual DVD. As far as I am concerned it disputes Al Gore's DVD and theory. And Lord Monkton isn't one of them, but there is another member of the House of Lords who is. Yet all the commentators and subscribers are not only working in the disciplines they support but
are actually all some awarded scientists. Check out the lecture by
the Canadian scientist too. He was employed by the Fisheries dept
to try and fathom why anchovies and herring seemed to fluctuate and
discovered why by deep core drilling. That's all for now folks,
enjoy the DVD. Geoff your science is off a bit I believe, but you have a website of course. There are many parts of Australia, Lord
Monkton and Prof Plimer are visiting. Most of the lectures for the public are only $20 per person, all welcome. No need to register, although one in Brisbane Qld, does require pre-registration etc., and
probably dearer to attend... Check JoNova blog Monckton and Plimer
dates and venues for contact. I'm putting in my apologies at each one.

Lord Monckton is a Viscount - son of an Earl, he is entitled to call himself 'Lord' or Sir. Nothing to do with whether he is a member of the House of Lords.