sonofgloin’s definition of a “spin psychologist”;

- Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science whose research examines people’s memory and decision making, with particular emphasis on how people respond to corrections of misinformation.

He has published over 110 scholarly articles, chapters, and books on how people process information and the important role of scepticism in people’s ability to update their memories. Stephan is particularly interested in the difference between scepticism and denial when it comes to climate change.
.

sonofgloin’s definition of a “star gazer”;

- Nir Joseph Shaviv is carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science and is most well-known for his cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change.

Joseph hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years.

Joseph’s best known contribution to the field of astrophysics was to demonstrate that the Eddington luminosity is not a strict limit and that astrophysical objects can be brighter than the Eddington luminosity without blowing themselves apart.

Joseph is noted as one of the global warming sceptics interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

.

Oops, damn astrophysicists, what are they doing messing with climate change? Perhaps Professor Ashley should just keep his tin-foil hat on and let a real star gazer like Nir Shaviv have is way.

So sono, you would say our emissions were astoundingly small and you are “struggling to find scenarios where 6 parts of anything has an effect against the existing tens of thousands of billions.”

That “astoundingly small” amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (~ 400 ppm) is what keeps our planet turning into a snowball.

Over the last 200 years we have increased the amount of atmospheric CO2 by 30 %

Up until 200 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was stable at about 280 ppm for about 10,000 years.

cont'd

You know what makes me laugh, sono? ‘Experts’ thinking that carbon ‘locked’ up in a hunk of coal, or carbon dioxide dissolved in a ‘cold’ liquid, equates to a heat-trapping carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere - pop your bottle of coke.

What would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad, is that these same ‘experts’ can’t understand the basic physics and chemistry that happens when you burn a hunk of coal, or warm a liquid containing dissolved CO2.

Sono, atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing because the oceans, land and biosphere cannot adsorb all the amounts of CO2 being emitted – from any source - at the same rate it is being spewed into the atmosphere.

Prefer to run with facts sono? Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

Going by what you have said, the graph is also a hoax.

@ Bonmot,

So we now have yours (and Morgan’s) admission that there was an attempt to censor Monckton.And, you can see from my earlier links that there were others on the AGW side of the “debate” who called for similar or worse! The fact that you & Morgan say you don’t go along with it doesn’t make it any less real.

I would say then, that Spindoc’s case, as stated in post one of this thread—is PROVEN!
(to borrow a slogan from the Warmists “the debate is settled ”).

And incidentally , for Gina Rhinhart (or some other business figure ) to sponsor Monckton is no more damning than Greenpeace or the World Wild Life Fund to sponsor an AGW proponent. Or, for the ABC to give too much airtime to David Karoly (actually , on second thoughts Rhinehardts endorsement is probably far less damning!)

@ spindoc &/or SPQR:

Did Monckton end up speaking at Notre Dame or not?

@bonmot: This is what spindoctor is referring to: http://tinyurl.com/tis-here Monckton did attend the ... event.

Thanks. Not a good look, was it? Nor was it smart. I wonder if they have heard of the Streisand Effect?

@morganzola: Did Monckton end up speaking at Notre Dame or not?

He did. Now that bonmot has given us some basic info, it is not hard to chase the rest down:

http://davec.org/tag/notre-dame-university/

@spindoc: The only constant in this debate is that there won’t be a debate; any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

And surprise, surprise, when the facts are revealed this hyperbole from spindoc is exposed for what it is. Monckton's talk went ahead as planned, no one was censored, no one was denied access to free speech.

If you had of restricted yourself to going basaltic at the academics who tried shut down the event then fair enough. But no, they didn't make the point you wanted to make, so you had "adjust" them slightly, blowing it up into something bigger than it was. Every wonder why the skeptics are sometimes characterised as a pack of lying scoundrels, spindoc?

@spindoc: Go and read any newspapers from the last 72 hrs then come back and talk to us about it

I haven't picked up a newspaper outside of a barber shop in a decade. So last century. Newspapers rarely quote references, and don't have links when they do. Notice how they are shadow's of their former selves, spindoc? There is a lesson there for people who want to influence the debate.

Following SPQR's logic:

If 99% of immunologists think vaccination against a disease is important, yet;

Only 1% think vaccination against that disease stupid, a waste of time and money;

Then each should be given equal say;

and the so called 'sceptics' and "forget-about-fact-checking" MSM and 'shock-jocks' jump on it.

Anybody watching/listening to the 'debate' would think there is real doubt and not even the experts (real and imagined) can get it right.

No wonder joe/jane is confused.

No wonder the 'Lord' is so popular to his 'believers' - he tells them what they want to believe.