"The Scare is over," Climate Change Skeptic Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 1 of 3

Right, his credibility should be questioned when you have such distinguished scientists such as Osama bin laden and AL Gore on your side.

It's so disappointing how often Gore is brought up in this manner, as if he's held as an authority on the issue. He is not a scientist. I don't care what side he's on, nor what he says. Nor Osama Bin Laden, as he is not relevant to the discussion. Good attempt at sidestepping the issue via ad hominem association, tho. Classy.

What is relevant are the mass, majority legion of scientists who back data with scientific method, and constant peer review. Their findings are subject to continual academic prodding to reveal information holes and inconsistencies, and correct them. There are few, if any, institutions whose systemic tendencies foster more accuracy than the broad scientific community.

And among those scientists who deal directly with this issue, there is a near universal distaste for Monckton's antics as he charades as a source of legitimate research.

There are some VERY legitimate climate change skeptics who base their criticisms on valid research using solid methodology that they've done personally.
Monckton is not one of them.

Um? I didn't refer to any particular publication. I was speaking of the scientific community broadly. What has this WWF have to do with what I said? Climate-related studies are published in more places than this random group you brought up.
You're so random, it's confusing.

I’ll explain: It’s severely damaging to the Global warming cause when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that was created by and reports to the U.N., and whose report provided the basis for the discussion in Copenhagen for a world treaty on climate change, based their data and report, not on peer reviewed journals, but on information obtained for the WWF.

Of the small minority of Climate scientists that publish articles and amazingly decided to not work for the IPCC, their articles are based off the non-peer reviewed IPCC report, as these independent scientists do not have the international funding to set up Climate research units across the globe.

So you see, these “peer reviewed journals” have no more creditability than wikipedia

Well, if some of those people took information from bad sources, then that brings their findings into question. They'd be rightly criticized, as is happening.

Yet, this is not representative of all scientists who are involved proponents to this anthropogenic theory. The majority of those with the training, and those who are well informed on the matter, are still in vast agreement. Are there comparatively bad scientists among them? Probably - we're talking about the majority here, so it is numerically logical that there'd be a larger number of dysfunctional scientists. (Although, this is unlinked to the ratio of good/bad on either side of the issue)

But here's the thing about your last comment... You partly frame it in such a way to tear down the broad institution, and seek to pull down the esteem of the existing peer-review system. Sure, you could do that....
But what about the body of knowledge that has resulted from it over the centuries? To cast doubt on that system is to cast doubt on the sum of our medical, physics, chemistry knowledge. And that just doesn't work very well.

If you have faith in scientific method, which we have no reason not to be, then we should have faith in the system that revolves around it. You may criticize those individuals all you want for abusing that system. If they did, then it's well warranted. But peer-review itself is the basis of much of what you eventually learned your school science classes.

MOK just listen to yourself!, so if al gore is neither a scientist or an authority on the issue, then why is it governments are using his scandalous dvd to brainwash school children despite of 32 false claims[as agreed by the court system],then gets a nobel peace prize for it,do you really endorse child manipulation on non facts??, he is one of many instigators who are "doing really nicely thank you" off the back of this in selling carbon credits etc, as for your comment "What is relevant are the mass, majority legion of scientists who back data with scientific method" is laughable, i think you will find its around 50, whereas there are 1000`s that think to the contrary, then look up the 50 & see where their interest lies, i`ll give you a clue,,,,it involves lots of money in grants & jollies, but dont take my word for it just spend a little time & do your own research, it might just open your eyes.

Well, there's a few problems there:
a) You're assuming I haven't read extensively from many different sources on the issue, including skeptics. This is incorrect.
You mention doing my own research. Some of your arguments sound very familiar, as if I've heard them many times before. It makes me wonder how much research you did, versus taking talking points at face value.
b) The number you throw out regarding credible scientists that agree with most of the body of climate research is strange. I can find more classically-trained scientists who've published on the topic on the shelves of Barnes & Noble than the number you throw out. Where are you getting them?
What's interesting about it is that if you reverse the subject of some of those statements, particularly the money & vested interest, it looks precisely like environmentalist's argument against deniers.
c) You're painting a picture where a bunch of people got together, and devised a money-making scheme in the field of physical and environmental science. I could go into more funny details here, and take up a lot of space, but instead I'll skip straight to the point: If I were trying to make money, I'd choose a field that had more, easier access to funding and publicity. Making crazy money via science is like going to Kansas to visit it's mighty mountains.
d) Al Gore is an activist who made a marketable movie. There are some important distortions in it. Extremely unfortunate and disappointing, as are the IPCC emails. You wont see me defending the specific individuals involved, nor Al Gore in this regard. And you wont see me in support of showing that movie in school. Careful, that was nearly a straw-man argument.
e) Teaching things that are incorrect, such as the distortions in that movie, are no good. But your use of the word 'brainwashing' is sensationalism at it's worst. I wonder if you consider the typical high school science class text book brainwashing? If atmospheric- and weather-related topics are brainwashing, then is teaching chemistry or biology brainwashing? This is one of the ways the debate goes down hill. And deniers wonder why 'there's been no debate...' Sheesh.