Their elders detail their plans in ‘the protocols’, right?

If you said something more like

The number of scientists cranks and nutters against climate change way out way outweigh the ones for it.

Then it would probably be a factual statement.

Incidentally you probably didn’t help your argument by being unable to correctly spell. It does make your opinion a little hard to even consider as being by someone who knew what they were talking about.

Perhaps you should rephrase your statement to :-

… when I realized that people don’t take anonymous posters seriously when they are trying to bullshit without sufficent understanding of the topic.

Sure seems far more appropriate to me.

Coincidently that degree was a BSc in Earth Sciences, which is why I know that both you and the lord of flatulence lack the basic understanding of climate, let alone the detail of climate change.

BTW: I also fixed your typo while restating your statement.

Game over, Dash. You lose.

I don’t take you seriously for example. I wouldn’t take you any less seriously under a pseudonym either.

Have you read the Palin book yet?

Yes, I did once use the name Dash RIPROCK III, but quickly dropped it when I realized that people don’t take anonymous posters serioulsy. I’ve taken it to the next level, I doubt you ever will..

So, Marky-mark, what you gotta say about that, eh?

“You’ve somehow managed to get it completely backwards.”
It is a pretty basic principle – if you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Looks like it is you that got this one backwards. Doing stuff like claiming to be things that you are not, even for a short while, is a pretty effective way of crapping on your credibility. If Chris Monckton is not a joke, why are people laughing at the two of you? And are you sure that there has only been one “joke” testify before the senate and house? I reckon a quick google search could blow a pretty big hole in that line of yours.

“What is it about a 90 minute scientific argument against AGW that would appeal strictly to Jesus and gun freaks?”
Not being a jesus and guns freak, I would be misrepresenting my position if I gave an answer. Since many of the comments have been about misrepresentation (in case you missed it, that’s a big word for “telling lies”), it would be hypocritical of me to even try to answer it. I see that you haven’t tried, either. Should I conclude that you are not a jesus and guns freak, or that you are incapable of answering your own question?

“Your name suggests that you are already sitting”
Don’t read too much into my name. I got it from a song I like, that’s all. I chose it deliberately to avoid revealing my gender, relationship status, age, employment status, place of residence, sexuality, interests, educational background, family history, ethnicity and the like. The intention was that my comments would then be judged on their merits (or lack of merit) only, with little to cloud the substance (or lack of substance) in the comment.

“so please consider sitting this one out.”
Considered. And I won’t sit it out. I have an opinion on the subject, an interest in the outcome and the ability to express it. My opinions and interests are no more or less valuable than yours, BLiP’s, Chris Monckton’s, Rob Salmond’s or anyone else’s.

“The debate is over your head and you don’t deserve to be a participant.”
How about we let the moderators on this site decide whether or not I deserve to be a participant. You sound like an authoritarian arse making statements like this – do you really believe you live in the land of the free when you think it’s okay to suggest anyone is stripped of even their voice? Does this sound familiar?
“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”
First Amendment – Yet your own words show you don’t believe in it. And you have the gall to suggest that it is you who needs to be worried about being subjugated by world government. Hypocrite.

“I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name…”
Bollocks. I can not be sure if there is a real Mark E Gillar out there. If there is, I still can not be sure if you are one and the same. But I don’t care either way. I’m much more interested in the substance (or, in your case, lack thereof) in your comments. Does your authoritarian streak stretch to believing that the right to privacy should be removed?
Also, you seem to be assuming I do not contribute to the debate using my real name elsewhere. Sure, I am the Armchair Critic here and on a couple of other blog sites. For reasons that are my own. In other situtions, like letters to the editor, submissions to local and central government, at work, at what you would call town-hall public debates and the like I say the same things and use my real name, address etc. I would not be surprised to find that many of the other contributors here do too. Which puts your theory out to pasture. Don’t bother asking what my real name is – it is none of your business.