[lprent: Why can't you learn to write rational comments? I've just had a look at the ones you've written previously. They don't show any signs of being able to discourse on any of the topics you've discussed.

Ummm I'll demonstrate my opinion of you. Name amendment coming up...]

A particular hypothesis is thrown out. But it is replaced by a similar hypothesis that differs in some small respect.

That a particular year is cold because of cyclical effects is evidence that is not inconsistent with climate change.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html

I’ve long believed that the way the European ETS is set up is close to corrupt. Exclusion of certain French and German industries on employment grounds, careful selection of base line date to advantage Europe, and the lack of verification of emissions levels particularly in eastern Europe and Russia are all problematic. Imagine Russia, home of the most concentrated polluting industries in the world on a per capita basis being a net seller of credits! Its just like money – you can invent as many credits as you need. This time though the oligarchs will be stealing off other countries rather than their own.

Anyway, back on point, recently Poland and Estonia won a court case which essentially said the European Commission does not have the right to impose caps on member states. So at least for the next 3 years Euopean states essentially have the right to set their own cap levels – voila they are all net carbon absorbers rather than emitters. And whatever emissions countries dont use in the next 3 years can be carried forward into the 2013-20 period. And you can be sure there’ll be plenty of other fiddles once 2013 rolls around.

Credits are now trading at EUR15 a tonne – well down and going lower. There is plenty of research around that values carbon on a “no cheating” basis of 25 to 40 EUR a tonne. The discrepancy is the amount of cheating going on.

I will repost the link to the latter here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/

Do me a favor, and stop leaving me to tidy up after your messes.

[deleted]

http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

[deleted]

[lprent: One of my troll signatures is someone who copies and pastes stuff from the net without bothering to indicate what is quoted (use blockquote - see the FAQ on quoting ) and what is their comment. In this case you didn't even bother to make any substantive comment on the topic. This site is here to debate. It isn't a copy paste area. Take a week off for being stupid and reflect on how to contribute. Oh and read the policy of this site.
For anyone interested, I've left the link in and zelda's 'contribution'. However this is plastered over the CCD net's at present. ]

The issue is about Monck, not Salmond but you want to make it about Salmond because you’re a climate change denier who sees Monck as a hero and you can’t defend him against the facts Salmond has exposed.

[lprent: If you look at the origional post, it was actually targeted on John Ansell and others from the sewer holding the Lord Moron up as credible speaker on climate change. The mere fact that it was possible to tear the Lord Moron's claims to pieces was a by-product. It wasn't targeted at him. BTW: Have you found the edit button yet. Mis-spelling doesn't help your credibility. ]