Global warming explained

This is long, over an hour and a half. Its not full of political cheap shots either. If you have the time take a look at it.

I'm not posting this to start an argument either, just for info purposes ;p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8...feature=channel

Be nice or Bubba will delete your post and call you bad names behind your back...... 😈

Are you sure you want to hook your cart to this particular horse? Have you researched his background at all?

Lord Monckton inherited his title, of course, and his degree is in JOURNALISM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...chley#Biography


Continue on at the link above to read about his career and qualifications:

Monckton joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 at the age of 22, where he worked as a reporter and leader-writer. From 1977 to 1978, he worked at Conservative Central Office as a press officer, becoming the editor of the Roman Catholic newspaper The Universe in 1979,

then managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph Magazine in 1981. He joined the London Evening Standard newspaper as a leader-writer in 1982.[1]

In 1979 Monckton met Alfred Sherman, who co-founded the pro-Conservative think tank the Centre for Policy Studies with Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph in 1974. Sherman asked Monckton to take the minutes at the CPS's study group meetings.[2] Monckton subsequently became the secretary for the centre's economic, forward strategy, health and employment study groups.[3] He wrote a paper on the privatisation of council housing by means of a rent-to-mortgages scheme that brought him to the attention of Downing Street.[2] Ferdinand Mount, the head of the Number 10 Policy Unit and a former CPS director, brought Monckton into the Policy Unit in 1982, where he worked until 1986 as a special advisor on economic matters.[3][4]

He left the Policy Unit to become assistant editor of the newly established, and now defunct, tabloid newspaper Today. He was a consulting editor for the Evening Standard from 1987 to 1992 and was its chief leader-writer from 1990 to 1992.[1]

So his background is in conservative politics, and as a reporter for a Roman Catholic newspaper, and as a special adviser on economics.

Also, here's Lord Monckton's take on solving the AIDS crisis, also at teh Wikipedia link:

Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View",[39] written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently. " This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult").

I need some reason to waste even 2 minutes of my time on his opinion of a subject he is not qualified to speak about. Where did you hear about this guy? When he was on Glenn Beck's show?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV135eE6m-0

BTW, if you listen to the first minute or so of that audio clip, Beck plugs his Monday show when he wants to talk about Net Neutrality, which he believes is a Marxist plot to control the internet.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210026

Let's see some opinions by someone who is qualified to speak on the subject, and who has published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not someone with a degree in journalism who used to edit a tabloid.

Just a quick reminder: I obviously don't have a relevant degree either. I just try to get my info from creditable sources. I don't read about this on a daily basis, I merely read what I come across, and what respected, qualified sources I have recommended to me. I don't personally declare global climate change to be happening, but I think it's worth having qualified people study it carefully on an ongoing basis, and continually reassess what is going on.

I just thought its interesting and makes sense.

What's Beck have to do with this? ... never mind, don't want this to degrade to a normal blog.

Just a quick reminder: I obviously don't have a relevant degree either. I just try to get my info from creditable sources. I don't read about this on a daily basis, I merely read what I come across, and what respected, qualified sources I have recommended to me.

http://mediamatters.org is not a credible source of anything.


Lexx some people (generic term not you specifically Doc or anyone here) don't like Glenn Beck so anything he or anyone on his show says is just wrong. It does not matter what the facts are, what information they bring, no matter how many scientists are cited, as in the video, it does not matter. You need to actually listen to Beck for at least a month to "get it".


If anything is leaning in anyway to the right, even a little, it is wrong no matter what.
Just like Fox news. Hell I agree the commentary shows like Hannity are just right spouting shows, I don't even like those, but the news reporting part is the most fair and neutral source out there period, there have been studies. That is one reason it is the highest rated.

This is the great divide we have now days.

Why bother arguing, it has never lead to anything but hard feelings.

Paladin wrote:http://mediamatters.org is not a credible source of anything.

I won't argue the value of that site, as I know nothing about it. I used it for the simple reason that it has a lengthy video segment from the show about net neutrality Beck plugged during the Lord Monckton interview. I expect you to ignore the rest of the page. I didn't even read it. It's important to note, though, that you made a claim about it's creditability without explaining why or citing anything. As I said above, I don't care about this website at all except for the clip it offered, and I'd be just as pleased as can be if we continued to ignore it, but I hope in the future you'll expand on things like this when you post. I might care about the next subject 🙂

lexx wrote:I just thought its interesting and makes sense.

What's Beck have to do with this? ... never mind, don't want this to degrade to a normal blog.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210026

I posted it because of our recent discussion on net neutrality, and because Beck plugged it on the show with the Lord Monckton interview. A tenuous reason, I'll admit. I'll apologize here for the potential derailment it might well have caused.

Paladin and I had a LENGTHY discussion on Vent Saturday night based around this thread. It really drove home to me that threads about controversial subjects with a dense amount of info are useless. Too much information is necessary to truly communicate effectively on the subject, you miss the natural flow of conversation, verbal cues, and body language.

I really should have realized this before. I've seen it countless times on other boards, as well as a few times on this one. Well, perhaps it's not useless, but I think it would require a nearly heroic effort on everyone's part to make progress towards understanding each other and the subject matter, if it can be done. As the person around here with the least actual meat-space life to interfere with this pursuit, even I have to say, "fuck it". You poor bastards with wives, kids, and lives to live, I can't imagine why you'd put forth the effort. We're all worm-food in the end. I think it's a better to have some fun rather than bandy words on an internet forum that will take far too much effort before it amounts to anything more than misunderstanding, sniping, and talking past each other.

I'll leave you all with this, and I'm reasonably sure most folks will agree: When evaluating news and info - follow the money, look for everyone's ulterior motives, and verify that info & cites are correct and not taken out of context. If we all apply these standards to our info, well, it probably won't amount to shit, because it's all a twisted Machiavellian plot that has more suspects and outcomes than the movie Clue. . .but what the hell else can we do? We could play games and hope the strippers and Stephen Hawking to drop by Vent to visit us again. . .that sounds OK.

👍

I'd agree. Follow the money. The only reason that people like Rush, Beck, and Obberman are on the air is that they say controversial things that get viewers to tune in, which brings in more $$$$$. If any of those guys believed half of the stuff that they spew out, I'd be shocked.

This certainly goes well beyond this board to this country as a whole, but opinions have become so personalized that almost every topic has been elevated to the level of religious conviction. What should be relatively rational discussions about economics, health care, and global warming have become rhetoric filled shouting matches where facts get shoved to the side for sound bites and sensationalistic misrepresentations that are quickly taken up by one side or the other as a rallying cry and proof that the "other side" is 1) trying to take your hard earned money, 2) control every aspect of your life, or 3) just plain evil.