Eyewitness at Copenhagen - Climategate Facts from Marc Morano

Marc Morano, editor of Climate Depot is perhaps the top expert on the fraudulent science and phony hype over global warming and climategate, and he brings you his report from Copenhagen where the last gasp of the "warmists" melted in the hot air of attempted statist power-grabbing. Watch this show for the latest on Climate Gate!

Follow Marc Morano's research and news at: http://www.climatedepot.com

This is an edition of Conservative Roundtable, the nationally broadcast conservative television program hosted by Howard Phillips, and produced by The Conservative Caucus; producer and creator: Art Harman.

Please visit our websites:
http://www.ConservativeUSA.org
http://www.HowardPhillips.com
http://www.NAUWarRoom.org

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• climategate
• climate
• gate
• depot
• copenhagen
• global
• warming
• warmist
• warmer
• east
• anglia
• al
• gore
• marc
• morano
• cap
• and
• trade
• art
• harman
• howard
• phillips
• tcctv
• conservative
• caucus

[paolotagliano]

@wimahlers because he tried to decieve them and take their money, take their jobs and give them to companies he has stakes in which produce much more pollution. 

[wimahlers]

@lapsatus Continued...

The medieval history you talk about is the European medieval history. This history, in any shape or form, does not invalidate AGW or proves that the MWP was continuous, global and/or as warm or warmer than the current global warming. However, that is what you suggest. And even if true, which given current studies isn't (see references in: tinyurl*com/6kw6gqy), it still does not invalidate the current consensus of AGW.

[lapsatus]

@wimahlers The Medieval Warm Period is uncontroversial; every progressive, public university teaches it matter of factly. My university (OSU) taught me about it in a Med. Studies course; you can't understand Medieval history otherwise.

1) Modern science can learn Med. temperatures from extant evidence; the Med. inability to do so is irrelevant.

2) History tells us that clergy began wearing warmer clothes, agriculture crashed, rain, famine and plague grew, because Med. Warm Period ended.

[wimahlers]

In short what scientific data or scientific report do you contest?

What is the science you contest it with?

And who verified (scientifically peer-reviewed) your alternative scientific explanation?

I really like to know! And please can you do it without resorting to the opinonated diatribe of Morano, Monckton and like persons. Try Lindzen. But please present his scientifically peer-reviewed paper. That is, I am not interested in any person but in solid scientific verifiable arguments.

[wimahlers]

I also wonder why AGW deniers have such a morbid fascination for Al Gore. There are actually people following Al Gore all the time pestering him with the most gullible and obnoxious questions. Why? Stalking groupies? I sincerely hope you are not one of them. I sincerely hope you back every assertion with actual science. Doing so would separate you, in a positive sense, from Tim Ball, Fred Singer and ilk. So, again, be careful with your sources. Make sure you check them before publishing.

[wimahlers]

@TheBullionBull, . "Compared to natural CO2, man-made CO2 is almost nothing." . So you claim! But can you back your claim? You can't! I know you can't because I know the verified scientific facts. I strongly suggest you verify your sources. I can back my claims. To start, here is a reference with references: tinyurl(dot)com/6zhzrlu Try to find one scientific institute in the world that denies or questions any of the discussed data herein. I bet you won't find any!

[wimahlers]

@TheBullionBull Oh my god ... are we back to the middle age arguments again? The time before the internet. satellites, science, the scientific method, all modern measuring equipment?

How do you justify your opinion that they are wrong now? What do you do with the following facts?

The artic ice is decreasing in volume. So is the glacier ice. All with a speed not seen by modern science for the past 650.000 years. What is your explanation? All this knowing the physical properties of CO2.

[TheBullionBull]

@wimahlers "Scientists" are often proven wrong by reality, too. There was scientific "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. You cannot extrapolate a 100 year period where temperatures are up by about 1 degree and then say that man is destroying the world. Small changes like that can happen all the time based on solar activity and many other factors much larger than a few small combustion engines. Compared to natural CO2, man-made CO2 is almost nothing.

[wimahlers]

@TheBullionBull The "Common sense" excuse never was nor wil it ever be a scientific argument.

Also, "common sense" is often proved wrong by science.

AGW is proved to be a fact by all measurements from different scientific disciplines. from space, ice core drills, flora and fauna migration patterns, atmospheric and oceanic temperature measurements. There also is direct measurement of the ever increasing air and sea CO2 concentration from the burning of fossil fuels. Etc .All facts denied by you

[wimahlers]

@TheBullionBull,

.

name a single accredited scientific university or other accredited scientific organization i the world that supports even one assertion against the scientifically accepted anthropogenic global warming consensus.

You can't! Governmental or otherwise.

As you are also unable to present an alternative explanation for the CURRENT global warming, the CURRENT melting of the glacier fields and artic ice cap and the exceptional amount of snow on the east south pole.