I was only exploring the background to your narrative, Richie 10, I have no reason to believe that it wasn't true.

>>I know because he told me so<<

It just staggers me that people could be so cruel as to tell someone in that position "hey, it's hopeless, just give up".

>>From your opinion of Munckton I would hazard a guess that you have a pretty low opinion of other opinions that disagree with yours<<

Not in the slightest. I was merely observing that there is discomfort in having similar opinions to someone who is so obviously a professional fruitloop.

If only this were true, RobP

>>The only good thing about them is they neutralise each other in the debate.<<

Instead of cancelling each other out, which would be a Good Thing, they encourage people to gravitate to one end of the spectrum of the other. Which is a discomfiting environment for someone not convinced by the extremist position at either end.

If you're pro-Monckton, you're tarred with the brush of "loony denier". If you're pro-Gore, you're a global scaremonger profiting from the creation of a new and unnecessary industry.

Sadly, the chances for a reasonable discussion went out the window years ago.

Pericles,

>>Instead of cancelling each other out, which would be a Good Thing, they encourage people to gravitate to one end of the spectrum of the other.<<

Even if both do encourage people to gravitate to the extreme ends of the spectrum, as long as people do so in equal measure, the debate is still in an overall balance. Yes, the distribution changes and yes, it does become more uncomfortable.

But it's not a lost cause as there may be a good consequence of ordinary people evacuating the middle ground: it opens up the way for some of the movers and shakers to take it and use their position in the establishment more positively. Read: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/be-truthful-on-climate-british-science-boss-john-beddington/story-e6frg6nf-1225824148004

>>Sadly, the chances for a reasonable discussion went out the window years ago.<<

This sad state of affairs could all change if the right people get involved and "drag the frame" so that the debate undergoes a new paradigm. The best thing that can be done now is that science is given the mandate to better understand the uncertainties in climate science and reaches prominence again. Something new has to come into the equation and a proper investigation of the IPCC and its processes might just be it.

Pericles,

Ease up, I used to like froot loops as a child, now its just another spoiled childhood memory.

However, your observations are excellent, this could simply mean I agree with them.

IMO Gore's input was tactically appalling in that his objectives were short focused, much like US presidential campaigns, designed to raise public profile to get over the line. Big on hyperbole, shock and awe.

He 'pushed' public opinion across the 'line', raising the profile of the topic but at the cost of objectivity.

Consequently we have presidential style polarized slag fest. More focused on style and personality than substance.

Likewise Monckton's "contribution?" to the debate is a means to crazier end. Proof positive that a hereditary title and/or privilege is no guarantee to superiority of any kind.

You may have noticed, that I have employed several different techniques to encourage discussion on the observable/provable and the science, in order to tease out addressing the probable consequences of the above, rather than fixating on either absolute. Sadly my skills are lacking.

Pericles,of course the Corporate media will attack Monckton.He has revealed the agenda a world govt owned by them and their financial backers.

You cannot deny it Pericles,it was there in black and white.Copenhagen was to be the nemisis of their New World Order ordained by the noble concept of saving the planet.

The likes of the Rothschilds heavily finance the Green movement.It is all a game.The corporates will back Obama's socialised medicine since the tax payer is then forced to buy their subsidised ,over utilised medicines.Socialism is fine for the Corporates since we are then all forced to buy their products decreed by Govt edict.

David Rockerfeller once said that competition was a sin.The object of all Corporates is to elimate competition.Competition exists only for small business and workers who generate wealth for the elites.

Hey, calm down there Arjay.

>>You cannot deny it Pericles,it was there in black and white.Copenhagen was to be the nemisis of their New World Order ordained by the noble concept of saving the planet.<<

What was there "in black and white"?

And I hate to nitpick, but from the context I don't believe you mean "nemisis"

nemesis
1. something that a person cannot conquer, achieve, etc.: "The performance test proved to be my nemesis".
2. an opponent or rival whom a person cannot best or overcome.
3. (with initial capital letter) the goddess of divine retribution.
4. an agent or act of retribution or punishment."
[Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.]

I suspect you may have intended to write "genesis".

No matter. If you have a reference to the "black and white" part, please don't hesitate to link to it.

Monckton said that World Govt was mentioned several times.It was hidden in stratas of gobbly-de-gook.Once Rudd had signed us up to that treaty,we would have been bound by it's edicts.It would have been the thin end of the wedge.Was there any mention of us voting down their edicts? No! This treaty had nothing to do with democracy!

The next stage will be a world currency owned by guess who? The same Gobal Res Banks who control the UN, Green Movement,World Bank ,IMF and Bank of International Settlements.