That was amazing.

“Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles.”

Powerful stuff.

liberalrepublican left off the best part of the speech by Lord Monckton:

Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves.

The prosperity of the West is not only our sustenance. It is also the very lifeblood of the struggling nations of the Third World. If our economies fail, we are inconvenienced, but they die.

We need to invite Lord Monckton to the biggest Tea Party protest that we can manage. The guy has some incredible conservative chops and we owe the Brits a chance to participate this time around. With us, not against us.

How I would love to see him eviscerate idiot Al in person.

the WaPo, and their editorials really drove his points home and made fools out of the warmers.

And “that” gentle reader is what a drug flashback looks like.

dontcha’ think? Dont’ know if we should tolerate that sort of intolerance; bedwetters have feelings, too!

And to all those naysayers from a true believer…

“And the blessing of God Almighty,
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
Be upon you and remain with you always.”

http://ssmag.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-politics-of-science/
http://ssmag.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/climate-change-and-scientific-objectivity/

I think we need to keep in mind that to some extent, science has its own political and philosophical slant. I’m going to hypothesize a little bit here, so bear with me. An academic scientist has dedicated years of her life to the study of nature, often forgoing a more lucrative career in the private sector, and frequently collaborating with colleagues from around the world. This suggests that scientists would be likely to
a.) be long-term thinkers
b.) have a sympathy for preserving the natural world, especially the particular subject of their research
c.) be inclined not to value financial ambition very highly
d.) not be very nationalistic; inclined to identify as closely with foreigners as with Americans

These are personal sympathies, or cognitive biases, that I think would make scientists favor different public policies than the average U.S. citizen. They’re also biases that would make scientists tend, on balance, to favor climate change legislation….given that scientists, politicians, and journalists all have their own axes to grind, it is not surprising that scientists are often presented as being monolithically on the interventionist side on the climate change debate.

If we want to, as Pielke says, be honest brokers, we need to be honest about the fact that scientists have their own politics. It may be to some extent unavoidable that policy decisions advised by scientists will be scientists’ policies — technocratic and reliant on expert judgment. And there are limits even to expert knowledge; nobody in Washington is smart enough to really know which emerging clean technology promises the most success in thirty years. Maybe the challenge for policymakers is to know when to listen to scientists, and when not to.

We can return to that promise of greatness and prosperity once shared by our two great nations, if we allow God to return to His rightful place in the public discourse and steadfastly adhere to the Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding.

I’ve never heard of Monckton and he’s already one of my favorite people. That is the true spirit of England - that is what made them great and what they (and we) should aspire to be again.

Greens that are too yellow to admit they are reds - the old watermelon saying holds true.

What if the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next century? I’ve seen the graphics, as I am sure that you have, depicting the anticipated street flooding in our major coastal cities, and how far inland it pushes. The message that this sends is rather bizarre -

Apparently we will all stand on the shores, transfixed in horror, paralyzed by fear and unable to act. We will cluster with our gauges and instruments measuring this inexorable inflow, and clutching at each other to seek what comfort we may against the unstoppable rise. Unable to move; unable to think; unable to act. By the time the seas have risen beyond today’s bounds we will have forgotten about dams and dikes and levees and pumps and such. We will have no industry or resources or plans to bring to this. We will stand there just waiting to drown. Poor us.

Thank you so much for attending and sharing it with us. I really enjoyed reading Lord Monckton’s speech.

I was able to find a video of the conference posted here:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Seeing him actually give the speech was even more of a delight. I plan to watch some more of the videos posted from the event.

Thanks again!

Wowza! Not that’s a speech. The Republican’s could use some of that fire. Send this to the RNC and have them study it. “Bedwetters”. Love that term almost as much as “rooftoppers” that Laura Ingraham uses to describe government induced “victims”.

I’m a political conservative *and* a scientist. This ICCC thread poses problems because, frankly, Lord Monckton’s closing ICCC address was pure demagoguery and pseudo-science. No engineer, mathematician, or scientist could read it without being repulsed.

What America’s conservatives *should* have learned from the Iraq War is that conservatism always needs a “Plan B” … in case “Plan A” doesn’t work.

What is conservatism’s “Plan B” in case the global warming alarmists are right? Because I have to say, that the science is looking stronger and stronger, while the case made at the ICCC, judged purely on the facts, is looking weaker and weaker.

Moe Lane has been posting links to xkcd, a comic strip that is widely read by engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. But Moe does not allow comments … which is too bad. Because the ICCC-brand of conservatism, which puts ideology ahead of science, is regularly mocked on xkcd.

“http://xkcd.com/154/”

Just to point out, a political movement that cannot attract engineers, mathematicians, and scientists is doomed.

Moe, what is conservatism’s “Plan B”, if it should turn out (as it usually does) that the scientists are right? Specifically, right that anthropogenic global warming is a problem so great as to threaten the security of every civilization on planet?

As a political philosophy, conservatism has always been characterized by foresight. Now is the time to show some.

The AGW “A Plan” appears to be to tax energy so as to cause a economic collapse in the U.S. which by reducing economic activity will reduce the U.S. carbon footprint (at the slight cost of consigning millions of Americans to penury, bankruptcy, freezing to death in the winter and other poverty-induced deaths - while government plutocrats seize all the means of production.

In brief, turn America into Zimbabwe.

Perhaps an AGW “B plan” might be advisable - unless you think that leading the crusade is your ticket to escaping the fate of the rest of us.

Sorry to be so snarky here, but unilateral action by the U.S. that will destroy our nation may appease the environmental cultists who believe that the U.S. needs to atone by returning to the Stone Age - but will destroy the hope of the world for a model of free society that can raise humanity from its sordid history of conflict and killings for scare resource.

Look at the environmental history of democracies versus totatitarian states. It is state monopolies that do the greatest abuse to the environment because they are run by corrupt individuals who are not accountable to anyone.

So far, only Aaron Gardner and I have put forth a conservative “Plan B” to cover the eventuality that global warming is real. Everyone else denies that it could be real … on grounds that are ideology-driven, not science-driven.

Didn’t American conservatism learn anything from the failure of ideology-driven post-war planning in Iraq?

Finrod says … “In case you haven’t read any information in Iraq in the last 2.5 years, the war in Iraq was won months ago.”

The Iraq War is won? Really? Someone forgot to tell our son, who is a Marine in Iraq, presently on his fourth combat tour.

In case you wonder why my my conservatism is grounded in sober reality (and long conversations with my son, when he’s home) … that’s a big reason why.