Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming

PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous." (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html) Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide." Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November. Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge." The arena of the glittering "Second Great Debate" will be the elegant, Victorian-Gothic Library of the Oxford Museum of Natural History, which was the setting for the "Great Debate" between the natural scientist T. H. Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce on the theory of evolution, following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Lord Monckton says he chose this historic venue "not only because the magnificent, Gothic architecture will be a visually-stunning setting for the debate but also because I hope that in this lofty atmosphere the caution and scepticism of true science will once again prevail, this time over the shibboleths and nostrums of the false, new religion of climate alarmism." Lord Monckton's resounding challenge to Al Gore reads as follows --

"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice- President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question, 'That our effect on climate is not dangerous,' to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President's choosing.

"Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President's prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save the Queen!"

Big Al should be soiling his (rather large) drawers right about now. He (and his inconvenient truth) will be shown to be the fraud he is for ALL the world to see. Unless of course, he just shrinks and scuttles away like the bottom dweller he is.

My apologies to Sir Robin....

Pt I
Bravely Bold Sir Al rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, oh Brave Sir Al.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Al!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, Brave Sir Al.

His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off.....

Pt 2
Brave Sir Al ran away. ("No!")
Bravely ran away, away. ("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled. ("No!")
Yes, brave Sir Al turned about ("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out. ("I never did!")
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat, ("All lies!")
Bravest of the brave, Sir Al! ("I never!")

Pt 3
He is packing it in,
And packing it up,
And sneaking away,
And buggering off,
And chickening out,
And pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

Climate Change Challenge

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven.

God Bless America ! God Save The Queen !

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, Scotland

011 44 1882 632341

monckton@mail.com

Here's a tale of two houses. Read the description of each, and then try to guess who its owner must be. Hint: One of the homes was built by one of most hated men alive today. The other belongs to a respected leader in the environmental movement.

Our first home is a great example of conspicuous consumption and wasted resources. It's a mansion in an upper-class suburb, with just under two dozen rooms and 8 bathrooms. Combined with its guest house, the home consumed 16,000 kWh per month in 2005. Then An Inconvenient Truth came out ... so how did this homeowner respond? In 2006 the energy usage rose above 18,000 kWh per month. This is over 20x the national average!

This home consumes more energy in 30 days than most US households do in a year and a half! In total, the owners paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for this estate in 2006.

The owners of the home claim they offset their usage by purchasing carbon credits. If global warming were a religion, this would be like the indulgences paid to the Catholic church before the Reformation. The overly wealthy can pay a small (for them) fine, and then be allowed to break rules (such as saving energy) the common folk are supposed to obey. It may work, but it sets a bad example, and in the end holds poor people to a different, unfair standard. And it does little to stop pollution, because the person paying the carbon credits is only paying an extra fee -- they're not changing their habits.

By most accounts, this home is an example of how people in this climate-aware era SHOULD NOT be living.

Our second home is the polar opposite. Situated on a 1600 acre plot of hot, dry prairie land, it's a modest home of 4,000 square feet. Below the home is a network of pipes descending 300 feet into the earth, where the dirt and rock keep a constant temperature of 67 degrees. Pumping this water back up into the home helps to cool it during the summer, and to heat it during the winter. It's a closed network, so the water is simply recycled.

"Passively solar," the home is positioned to allow for maximum absorption of the sun's heat in winter. Thanks to the geothermal system, the home operates on a mere 25% of the electricity it might otherwise require. The geothermal system even heats the home's outdoor pool--so efficiently, in fact, that original plans for additional solar paneling were cancelled.

Various gardens and grounds on the property are irrigated by a greywater system that channels shower, sink, toilet water and rainwater into enormous underground purifying tanks. And as icing on the cake, the walls of the home were built from cheap Luders limestone scrap material, quarried locally, that other homebuilders had thrown away.

And while conservation was kept in mind, these were also practical and financially-advantageous choices, for a hot and relatively-isolated region where water is scarce. Construction of the home started in 1999 and completed in 2001. It was financed privately -- no taxpayer dollars were spent in its construction.

You'd be hard-presed to find a more illustrative model for market-driven sustainability. The home is a green utopia, and is so thoroughly off the grid that the green celebrity blog Ecorazzi and the renewable energy website Off-Grid both recently devoted in-depth profiles to it.

The first property is a mansion in an upscale neighborhood. It consumes over twenty times the amount of energy as the average US household. Clearly, this is someone who does not wish to reduce consumption, or to save energy. It must be owned by an oil executive, or an energy-company tycoon. Or a media mogul. Perhaps the CEO of Halliburton - they're all supposed to be evil, right?

The second property, on the other hand, is an example of green building and sustainability. It definitely must be owned by a great environmental leader. A rich scientist, perhaps. Or the chairman of the National Resources Defense Council. Or of the EPA. Greenpeace, maybe.

Who'd you pick? You'd be surprised.

The first mansion, guzzling electricity and paying carbon-credit "indulgences" for it, is in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, Tennessee. It belongs to Mr. Al Gore.

The second home, an example of green building and reduced energy consumption, is the western White House in Crawford, Texas. It belongs to President George W Bush.

"These people are organized and serious about CO2 being the cause of GW and the US as the main contributor. Yikes!"

Yikes indeed.

Mix together a psuedo-scientific theory which is little more than a false Earth Religion and people with too much time and money on their hands and you get a big mess.

The following things are wrong with the Global Warming Theory:

A) There is not statistically valid data to
validate that global temperatures are actually rising
beyond the level of random, statistical noise,

B) The Climate Models being used to hype doomsday
scenarios don't make reliable predictions for any
outputs using back tested data (temperatures, rainfall,
weather events).

C) The Climates models are linear and don't take into
account longitudinal feedback effects. The Climate
itself is non-linear with multiple feedback loops.

D) The link between temperatures and anthropocentric activities
is absolutely speculative.

The political gullibility of the MSM and the corruption of Government funded Scientists are the only factors that have kept this theory afloat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.