Keep your dissent to yourself !
 

Democrats refuse to hear skeptics at congressional hearing on gorbal warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Re...sional-Hearing

Ok that's one man's interpretation. Do we have any facts that the evil Democrats are hatching up equally evil plans to suppress dissent?

Every paragraph is just

This is only his opinion/perception. Don't confuse opinion with facts.

Here is a hint: Anytime an "scientist" uses the phrase "chickened out" in an argument, their credibility takes a dip. :nope:

Monckton is a joke.

Is Gore a scientist? What qualifies Gore then?

Whoa i surprised you guys trust anyone these days to tell you the truth. Least of all political party's and there followers.
I would not trust any politician as far a i could throw the tosser.

Well here is a hint...Gore is a stuffed shirt retired VP. He is about as qualified as me in global warming matters. Yet, most here have thrown Monckton under the bus and for what, an opinion. If that is the case, both Gore and Monckton are nothing but opinions looking to debate.

They're still a young country Chris....give em time and they'll learn, the hard way like we did :doh:

Your quotes merely illustrate the bias and style of the author and has nothing to do with the source.

Besides, why shouldn't his opinions be listened to any more than Al Gore's? The "science" is hardly conclusive and represents a concensus moreso than experimental verification.

What concensus?

Its more like a religion than a scientific process if anything.

This "suppression" is actually amazingly common. It happens in business, politics, and even science. Generally, there is some agenda behind it.
Just look at teachers' unions that lobby against parent choice in school districts. Do parents benefit from not having a choice of schools? Of course not, but the union does, because if parents had a choice, teachers would have to work harder and be more effective. But tell that to the teachers. Not many people any would go about saying that a lot of our teachers and schools aren't worth the paper we pay them with, because they would be accused of jeapordizing our childrens' futures. Ask just about anyone if they favor more funding for education. The answer is virtually always a yes. We have the union lobby to thank for that, despite their consistent failure to provide adequate education in America.

There is quite a bit of big business support for environmental regulation as well. The reason for that is that regulation is harmful to new business, a.k.a. competition, whilst also being good for publicity. Now everyone "knows" that global warming is a fact. They "know" that mankind caused it. They "know" that we can do something about it.

Even scientists are not immune to that kind of behavior. Plenty of "junk" science has been peddled to the media, and then to the public over the years. It is often accompanied by alarmism and defamation of the opposite side of the argument. And it often works.

If the theory of man-made global warming (and measures to combat it) is good science, why do they oppose debate? Why are their arguments often so charged with morality and emotion and fear (It's for the children! We can't take chances! etc. etc.)
Given other examples of the same kind of behavior, I think there is an agenda, even if that agenda is only the validation of a particular line of work.

Perhaps the IPCC will protest this move, which would restore some of their credibility in my eyes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

It IS a concensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consens...ge_controversy

A concensus doesn't mean everyone agrees - it means that there is a large amount of agreement on a theory that is not verifiable.

Frankly, throughout history scientific concensus and religion have been fairly interchangable.

Scientific process would usually call for parsimony or Occam's Razor be used with trying to suggest a theory or hypothesis should be considered scientific fact (which of course is less than total fact which essentially doesn't exist or at least is unknowable for mere humans). If congress is going to hear from aomeone with NO scientific training ie Al Gore should at least be willing to listen to an opposing view from an actual scientist. Of course we all know it is just a sideshow anyway. They don't care about the truth, just acting for the cameras.

Well I can tell you this much the globe ... well at least here ... is warming.

90 degrees F today.

Maybe because we are sick to death of this "debate" over GW?

GW is real the "solution" is what is the problem here.

Hell I agree that it is FAR too little too late to ask industry to install scrubbers and whatnot. Let them pay for us to seed iron the oceans and they will gladly pay by the ton to be marketed as green.

Wasn't this the Monckton who in his published work to show the 35 errors in Gores propoganda piece managed to put in 125 errors himself .