Seriously. And then a gullible journalist named Michael Coren wrote it down and put it in the Winnipeg Sun. Ed Darrell has the details.


  1. #1 Mark E. Gillar
    October 15, 2009


    Janet, in the future, please actually read the entire board before commenting.

    If you scroll to the very top (hopefully you know how to do that) you’ll see that Monckton’s lack of true scientific credentials was being discussed before I arrived. This is a tired old passtime here at Deltoid, yet the participants never seem to grow tired of it.

    I was trying to point out that to question Monckton’s lack of scientific credentials without questioning Gore’s lack of scientific credentials makes the people here guilty of employing a double standard.

    “Return when you have some useful evidence.”
    Why don’t you return when you can follow a
    string and add a comment that makes sense?

  2. #2 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    > I will remind you that the lack of a scientific background does not preclude one from giving scientific advice.

    It does rather weaken the assumption that the advice given is sound…

  3. #3 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    Oh, and if this an attempt to get Monckton’s lies on being a science adviser to a scientist, then it fails.

    Why would a chemist of Thatcher’s capability want someone who doesn’t even know his latin for “Homer Nods” (which is in its original latin a shorthand for “Even Home sometimes dozes off and misses things” (nodding off), but Monckton used the latin for “Nods his head” (as if Homer agrees).

    And as to his scientific capabilities, please read this:

    If you disagree, please point out where he has made a mistake.

  4. #4 Paul Uk
    October 15, 2009

    >Neither do I care about poor people around the globe who can’t afford to eat thanks to bio-fuel mandates that have driven up the price of food.

    How about the people that can’t afford to eat because they have less land to farm as a result of climate change?
    How much land does a flooded city of 200,000 people take up?

    eg. In such a case, the population would displace farm land that would have produced food for the city and others. The remaining farmland would have to produce more food and hence would require more inputs to keep it going or it would become sterile at a faster rate.

    If you like taking gambles, don’t take it with your own kids future, assuming you have them.

  5. #5 Mark E. Gillar
    October 15, 2009

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You don’t like my website. You don’t like the name of my group. Yet I still hold out hope(perhaps naively)that one day we’ll bump into each other at a Sarah Palin rally in Chicago and become good friends.

  6. #6 Paul UK
    October 15, 2009

    Mark EG.
    >I was trying to point out that to question Monckton’s lack of scientific credentials without questioning Gore’s lack of scientific credentials makes the people here guilty of employing a double standard.

    Isn’t the problem that you take Gore far more seriously for his presentations and campaigning than anyone here.
    AFAIK Gore doesn’t challenge any scientists with his own theories.
    I believe Monckton attempts his own analysis, yet as pointed out here, he has no scientific background.

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    October 15, 2009

    No problem with me following the threat MEG, that’s why I’ve called you on giving Monckton a free pass and for being a hypocrite.

    I’m happy to reiterate.

    I notice you still lack the basic constituent of evidence in your argument. So three strikes. Well at least you’ve got bluster, but that only cuts if for ill informed ideologues, you don’t cut it here.

    BTW your site is an embarrassment of propaganda. But at least you look rich, too bad that the ideology you are pushing has brought a once great nation to its knees. Bad luck on that one.

  8. #8 Paul UK
    October 15, 2009

    >Why is it that I’ve never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member?

    1. How often do you watch the House of Lords in the US? (assuming you have access to it).

    2. Why would they bother? What relevance does it have to parliamentary procedure? If anyone really took him seriously the police might prosecute for fraud. I think you are applying American sensibilities to an old bloke that claims he’s a lord. You partly want to believe that a weird looking English bloke would tell the truth because he supports your belief.

    Your question is a typical one that I would expect from a conspiracy theorist.

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    October 15, 2009

    >Why is it that I’ve never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member?

    That is moronic!

    Why have I never heard the board of surgens say your not a doctor? That proves your a doctor in Hooterville!

    Have you considered renaming your site Hooverville, that’s two massive depressions down to your idiotic ideology!

  10. #10 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    72 Mark,

    My dear Effingham, it will be a pleasure. 😀

  11. #11 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    74 Mark,

    Interesting. Can I ask who “they” were? It would be useful to know who these fantasists/incompetents/liars are.

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    74 Mark,

    I assume you _do_ know what red noise is but wanted _their_ explanation?

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    84 Paul,

    Exactly. It is a signature of AGW “sceptics” to shriek “Algore! Algore! Algore!”. They seem to think he’s somehow crucial to the great AGW “conspiracy”. It’s quite amusing just how obsessed with him they are. No one on the “mainstream science” side cares much about him at all.

  14. #14 Robin Levett
    October 15, 2009

    @Janet #87:

    Have you considered renaming your site Hooverville…

    Don’t suggest that – if he does, it’ll destroy the pun should Paul UK or I be driven to call him a right tit (which is such a good one on more than one level).

    @Mark E Geller #68:

    (Apologies for the previous mis-spelling – I take it you’re not related to Buffy?)

    In the meantime, I will remind you that the lack of a scientific background does not preclude one from giving scientific advice. Are you suggesting that neither Gore nor Monckton should be allowed to give testimony in Washington D.C. regarding Cap and Trade legislation?

    A couple of points. Firstly, unless I’m much mistaken Monckton would have last studied science at age 16, for O-levels – and perhaps not even then. I know that the Classics scholars at my school gave up Physics at 14; although given that Monckton’s school is considerably younger it may have had different ideas.

    Secondly, he graduated with his diploma in journalism and went straight to work for the Yorkshire Post – nowhere there or in his subsequent career of stints at Smith Square punctuated by editorships of The Universe and right wing rags is there any indication of any serious scientific study. He makes the ludicrous claim that he got a serious grounding in the scientific method doing classics at Cambridge. The idea that he was in a position to give a rather intelligent chemist (no-one can both have worked as a research chemist and a tax barrister without some intelligence) scientific advice on the basis of having read some classical writings on science is beyond ludicrous.

    Gore doesn’t pretend to any specific scientific expertise; although he does have the advantage that he at least took one science course at Harvard – from Roger Revelle.

    That though is irrelevant; the point of AIT is to present the findings of others, not to claim the research as his original work. Monckton, on the other hand…

    As for whether they should be giving evidence re Cap and Trade? They are neither of them economists, although Gore’s experience in government must count for something. They are neither of them scientists. You tell me; should they be giving testimony?

  15. #15 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    > I assume you do know what red noise is but wanted their explanation?

    > Posted by: TrueSceptic

    More than that, I want how they produced red noise.

    Since the barnpot says they did it themselves, this should be simplicity itself.

    And since they cannot (at least have not yet) given their method of creating red noise, this is proof that they didn’t actually do the work themselves.

  16. #16 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    > Interesting. Can I ask who “they” were? It would be useful to know who these fantasists/incompetents/liars are.

    > Posted by: TrueSceptic

    Denialist numpties on the BBC blogs by Richard Black etc.

    Currently they’re going back over the “Computer models aren’t science!” and “All I want is PROOF!” and slowly morphing back to “It’s saturated, so how can CO2 be the culprit!”.

  17. #17 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    Oh, and I note that they’re going now for the “it’s been cooling for the last 10 years!” (and ignoring that we’ve got 2009 mostly done).

    It’s depressing, really.

  18. #18 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    93,94 Mark,

    Thanks, that’s what I expected: they were just repeating claims made by McIntyre & co., IOW, they were lying, as they clearly did not do it themselves. If I had done what they claim, I wouldn’t be able to wait to tell everyone exactly how, in the finest detail.

    I admire anyone who tries to fight the foul deluge of anti-science nuttery at climate-related blogs at the BBC, Guardian, etc. I just hope it’s not futile.

  19. #19 WotWot
    October 15, 2009

    More fun and games at the DM.

  20. #20 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    > I admire anyone who tries to fight the foul deluge of anti-science nuttery at climate-related blogs at the BBC, Guardian, etc. I just hope it’s not futile.

    > Posted by: TrueSceptic

    Problem is, it IS futile.

    All you can do is make sure they don’t get the Great Lie unopposed. You aren’t going to convince PAW and Mango even with Tablets From God stating AGW is right (with the Big Yin there to confirm).

  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    This article claims

    According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998.
    If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

    What a travesty of the truth! Is it sheer incompetence or a bare-faced lie?

    (The Mail, of course, is the RW rag that publishes Melanie Phillips’s anti-science garbage.)

  22. #22 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    The problem TS is that they will _INSIST_ they haven’t lied.

    They have by omission. You only get 1934 as the hottest year if you ask “what is the hottest year … in the US”.

    cf Grima’s “I never, never, never, ever, never lie”.

  23. #23 Mark
    October 15, 2009

    PS where’s Meg gone?

    Hopefully he’s working out whether this person:

    is right on Monckton’s mistakes.

  24. #24 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    100 Mark,

    I’ve just posted there about that (first time I’ve done so). I see that several others have complained too, but no correction has appeared in the article.

    It’s funny to see the same old, same old, tripe.

    Tax! Scam! Canute! Algore!

    It’s also funny that many are rating simple facts with “down arrows”. How do these cretins even use a computer?

  25. #25 MikeB
    October 15, 2009

    #97 – The Daily Mail article is pretty much what you expect of the Mail, the headline and first half being stupid/Melanie Philips. They even mention Easterbrook. But if you scroll down, you have Latif, Forster and the Met Office all mentioned. Of course few DM readers are looking at the second half of the story, having been assured in their prejudices by the headline. The DM has a habit of this, with a recent story about insects supplied by by the charity my wife works for ending up as ‘Invasion of the Killer Spiders’. She was not pleased…

    As for Hudson – Leo Hickman asked the BBC nicely what’s going on , and got a terse non-reply. Someone in the BBC is a little embarrassed. Well done to those posting at the BBC and the Guardian – great work.

    I’m all right – I get Midlands and we have Des – I have no idea what he think about climate change, but he’s far cooler than Hudson.

  26. #26 Paul UK
    October 15, 2009

    Re: 97
    That looks quite tame for the Daily Mail, both article and comments.

  27. #27 lenny
    October 15, 2009

    “If you scroll to the very top (hopefully you know how to do that) you’ll see that Monckton’s lack of true scientific credentials was being discussed before I arrived.”

    No she won’t. She’ll see that Monckton’s lying about his credentials was being discussed – lying that apparently hasn’t diminished your credulity one bit.

    Now why don’t start backing up some of your empty rhetoric and assertions by answering Mark’s comment 74?

  28. #28 Chris O'Neill
    October 15, 2009

    It’s also funny that many are rating simple facts with “down arrows”.

    Pretty amazing. They seem to think if they don’t like the facts, they can just say the facts are no good. This is what “denial” means, i.e. being in denial of the facts.

  29. #29 TrueSceptic
    October 15, 2009

    106 Chris,

    You are a warmofascist! You claim that those figures are for the USA alone, but that is just part of the great green leftist nazi conspiracy!

    Algore! Algore! Algore!

    (I used to get bored with Frank Bi’s “shorter xxxx” comments, but he was right all along.)

    Denial Depot continues to struggle to top the real thing (Poe’s Law rules).

  30. #30 WotWot
    October 15, 2009

    That looks quite tame for the Daily Mail, both article and comments.

    Thanks for the warning. Won’t be wasting any more of my life on that rag and its supporters again.

    I guess progress ain’t for everybody. Some people just need to be left behind. Ain’t much else can be done with them.

  31. #31 Mark Byrne
    October 15, 2009

    I’ve read somewhere, that people who become so attached to an ideology don’t change their minds, they die out.

    I hope our decision makers arn’t waiting for [such deniers]( to change their minds?

  32. #32 ChrisK
    October 15, 2009


    “The funding from these groups is pennies on the dollar compared to what the government has handed out in the way of grants for research.”

    ..he says, cheerfully equating research funding with money to push a particular line.

    You’re not going to claim that research funding is contingent on which way your findings go, are you?

  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    October 15, 2009

    Mark, Mark, Mark…

    Most of the scientists listed as sceptics on your site have negligible publication records. Where is their science? George Monbiot has examined the motivations of many of these people in some of his columns. No need for me to do that here.

    I am also not saying that all of the sceptics by any means are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries or think tanks but many of the most prominent ones are at least associated with them. Moreover, many of the sceptics share a right wing (liberatarian) ideology which promotes evisceration of government regulations in pursuit of private profit.

    I also find your web site unintentionally humorous in that you appear to think that the Obama administration is some far left liberal gang intent on reducing or eliminating freedoms in the U.S. Essentially, over here in Europe we are beginning to realize (as many of us knew all along) that Obama is nothing more than Bush with a public relations makeover; look at the foreign policies of the Bush and Obama administrations (not to say many of the characters involved) and Imperial Brand U.S.A. is pretty much exactly the same as before. Paul Street describes exactly why Obama won the Nobel Prize, and it isn’ because his policies abroad have deviated one iota from those of George W.Bush and his neocon cronies.


    To be honest, given the fact that the US political system has long been beholden to commercial elites, I find it amusing – to say the least – when I see web sites like yours with all of its rhetoric.

  34. #34 Mark Byrne
    October 15, 2009


    Lobbyist, lobby-tanks and propagandist front groups like Gillar’s only need spend pennies in the dollar to influence [polical decisions]( with greater political effect than hard earned solid scientific evidence.

    Yet this is only a faction of the plutocractic influenc that displaces democractic process. We ought also tally the costs of the revolving door between government and various industrial profit complexi; then tally the costs of ripping of the public with poor decisions and narrow self interest resulting from this plutocratic imbalance of power; the cost of suppression of disruptive alternatives; and on, and on etc…

  35. #35 ChrisK
    October 16, 2009

    Mark Byrne@112

    Yes, sadly true. It costs a lot less to muddy the waters than to do real science. They also rely on people’s tendency to give more credibility to sources who tell them what they want to hear.

  36. #36 James Haughton
    October 16, 2009

    Mark Byrne @112, The Onion already did the hard work of tallying the costs and benefits:

  37. #37 James Haughton
    October 16, 2009
  38. #38 ChrisK
    October 16, 2009


    Another point is that the creationists can also point to lists of scientists who support them. (And like the AGW ‘sceptics’, they also inflate the numbers by including people who aren’t really scientists.)

    But in the end, so what? Science is not decided by scientists expressing opinions or signing petitions, it is by scientists doing research, gathering data, making and testing hypotheses, that sort of stuff. You know, science. Which is what our ‘sceptical’ scientists have completely failed to do.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    October 16, 2009


    Beautiful link. I love the Onion; when I was a post-doc at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 12 years ago their magazine was a real tonic.

    The article sums up the myth of “trickle-down” economics; the same thing happened when Friedman-type “shock therapy” was applied to essentially fascist regimes in Latin America with US support during the 1970s and 1980s. Much of the middle classes were dumped into poverty while the rich became even richer. Wealth was concentrated; the idea that “all boats are lifted” by these policies was shown to be absolute nonsense; only those with yachts appeared to benefit.

    Chris K also makes an excellent response to MEGs inflated list of scientists who deny AGW. The petitions are a load of crap in my opinion. Scientists are paid to do science, but many of the sceptics do not seem to think that doing actual science is very important, but appear to be happy to have their names crop up on these lists. Check out their publication records and maby have utterly meager ones.

  40. #40 Mark Byrne
    October 16, 2009

    James @114/115,

    You’ve got a keen memory, I can rarely find two year old gems when I want them!

  41. #41 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    Isn’t it odd how denialists proclaim that consensus isn’t science and they say that AGW shouldn’t be actioned against because there’s no consensus. And also point to the Oregon Petition and 3000 signatures being proof that AGW is wrong.

  42. #42 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    Meg’s “pennies on the dollar” meme keeps getting promoted by a frequent denier pauls over at desmogblog.

    And when it comes to “pennies on the dollar”, the coal industry alone in the US alone gets government subsidies of $3.1Bn a year. Oil over $15bn a year. Nuclear $5Bn a year (mostly the actuarial cost from the US underwriting the insurance costs that commerce will not touch with a barge pole: does Meg and his cronies want government out of that??).

    Just for the US alone.

    This adds up to lots of pennies from each person and dwarfs the monies paid to green projects.

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    October 16, 2009


    Well said… and on top of that look how much money industry spends lobbying members of Congress… in 1998, for example, big oil spent 58.2 million dollars, and agrobiotech companies 129.3 million dollars doing this. The same year, ALL NGOs spent a combined 4.7 million dollars. This includes NGOs representing a wide array of areas, including environmental groups (this was more than 10 years ago). This excludes the money spent by industry as campaign donations and other ways of currying favor with government, explaining why the US is essentially a plutocracy. In spite of what MEG says, as far as I am concerned there is barely a scintilla of difference between the Democrats and Republicans (as Gore Vidal once said, there is one party – the Property Party – in the US with two right wings, Republican and Democrat).

    That is why I peruse MEGs web page with amusement; I don’t think there would be much of a difference in foreign policy even if the Sarah Palin was president. Perhaps Iran would already have been flattened by U.S. bombs, and levels of violence in Afghanistan might be a bit higher, but not much else, at least in terms of foreign policy. The political agenda of both parties is remarkably consistent.

  44. #44 TrueSceptic
    October 16, 2009

    121 Jeff,

    There’s an old joke here, comparing US to UK politics.

    “You see, the Republicans are like the Conservatives, whereas the Democrats are like the… Conservatives.”

  45. #45 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    TS, mind you, it’s now: Labour are like … the conservatives…

  46. #46 Bernard J.
    October 16, 2009

    Mark and TrueSceptic.

    Sadly, the same applies for the Australian Labor Party, although there is admittedly a slightly more humanitarian approach to refugees and assylum seekers by the ALP than there was by the previous Conservative Government.

    And although their approach to emissions control is nothing to write home about, at least they have the pretense – the Conservatives went to the last election with quite a number of their prominent Members still actively and vociferously denying AGW.

    Some still do.

  47. #47 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    Maybe one problem is that money is needed to get “face time” with the public and it’s more about voting for the name you know now that there’s no real difference between the parties (there are still differences between candidates, but in the UK, the whips have far too much control and MPs tend to vote party rather than constituent).

    This need for money to get voted for is why there’s an inevitable drift to right wing (in so far as the monied are exalted by the right wing and “the poor” exalted by the left [though there’s a whole other rant about the left’s definition of the poor]). If you need money, those WITH money are the ones you need to get it from. And they won’t help those who don’t help the rich.

    Conglomeration and homogenisation of media would adequately explain this.

  48. #48 TTT
    October 16, 2009

    I can’t believe conservatives would dare try to BRAG about Monckton’s credentials–real or otherwise–in the Roight Honowwable Piffaloon Society of the Divine Dervish or whatever the hell all his boilerplate assertions about portcullises and flying buttresses and wainscottings are supposed to mean. It’s the most absurd example of fawning over meaningless idle pseudocredentials I’ve ever seen.

    I had assumed Mark Gellar’s first post, including those credentials, was a JOKE. But no, apparently Monckton and his fans actually care about his Ministry of Silly Walks drivel and expect us to care too. Maybe they haven’t gotten around to reading the IPCC reports because they haven’t finished announcing all of Monckton’s roight honowwable titles aloud.

  49. #49 frank
    October 16, 2009

    The “number of scientists” thing is an area which both sides have problems with.Steven Schneider admitted that only 400 of the 2500 IPCC people were really climate scientists,and the Oregon petittion is really only meant to demonstrate that there is no ‘consensus’.It is not about the science.

  50. #50 Eli Rabett
    October 16, 2009

    Well, since the 2.5K included such luminaries as Steve McIntyre, Vincent Gray, Monckton, Richard Courtney and other expert reviewers, gotta say frank has a point.

  51. #51 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    However, frank, the veracity of the IPCC report doesn’t rely solely on the number of people reviewing, unlike (say) the Oregon Petition for denialists.

    The petition doesn’t HAVE any science. All it has is the number of signees.

    Take that away and the oregon petition (and all its vampiric children in whatever name they use) has nothing.

    Take 2500 reviewers from the IPCC report and you still have the science.

  52. #52 sod
    October 16, 2009

    hurry over to WattsUp, and his read laudation for the Lord, titled [“Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton”](

    of course including:

    Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher…

    and some birth certificate myths:

    would [Obama’s potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

    if that is not insane enough for you, take a look at the “confirmations” in the treaty, for the claims that Monckton made about it:

    World Government (heading added) (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

    To Redistribute Wealth (heading added) b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

    With Enforcement Authority (heading added) © The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

    isn t it just wonderful, how those “added” headlines directly follow from the real text in the treaty?

  53. #53 sod
    October 16, 2009

    i want to add (for once) a positive remark about “sceptics”: even many of the Wuwt readers are pointing out, that Monckton and his ramblings are rubbish.

    unfortunetly, Roy Spencer is not among those:

    Roy Spencer (05:49:10) : “conspiracy” is such an emotional term. Why not “concerted plan” instead?

  54. #54 frank
    October 16, 2009

    Yes true,the only point I am making is that we have to be careful of all the numbers that are being thrown around,ecspecially in the media.Speaking of which the ‘scientific’ reviewers of the SPM is a lot less than 2500.Not true?

  55. #55 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    But the point to take is that the *science* in the IPCC has been reviewed.

    If the work and honest of those reviewers are not accepted then the “skeptic” should look at the science and review it themselves.

    However, given that there are still massive numbers of “skeptics” who do not believe the review process *still* go on about “Why does the IPCC say only CO2 is the problem? They just ignore everything else and that’s why this AGW is a scam!”. Since the IPCC report has a complete Chapter on attribution and even reading the “contents” section would show this, they haven’t trusted the reviews but do not want to review it themselves either.

  56. #56 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    Nail has a NEW!!! “paper” on his site, apologies for bringing him back on here, but it does work with sod’s post here.

    It seems like some denialists are too much even for WUWT (so I guess I’d better dial back my disgust at the moderators on there at least). From his paper he proclaims science blogs have not a jot of science. Even WUWT:

    > One of our staff members was offended and banned by the owner of a well known “scientific” blog (Watts Up With That or WUWT) just for having quoted from a book on Radiative Heat Transfer, exposing the pseudoscience expressed by one of his moderators, called “Phil.” The owner of the blog got extremely furious at our colleague, and insulted him by saying that his science was ridiculous (even when he had cited exactly the words of Dr. Modest which had been taken from his book on Radiative Heat Transfer

    Though this may be more that Nail slammed WUWT, at least they show they know anti-science when it’s aimed at them. And there’s the hope that they know it in other cases.

  57. #57 sod
    October 16, 2009

    just funny to watch: Anthony has removed a lot of the “birther” remarks, and updated the original post, claiming that Monckton “refuted” the birther question.

    [Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]

    but löooking at the exchange, that is not how i would describe what Monckton did:

    Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I –

    I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

    I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama’s potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

    I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

    “clearly refute” does sound different in my part of the (real) world. what Monckton said was: “YES”. and “there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii”.

    nut hey, that could be just me…

  58. #58 sod
    October 16, 2009

    oh and watch Anthony’s logic:

    Even so, I think we have a better track records here of posting alternate viewpoints than RC, “Open Mind”, or Climate Progress. WUWT’s traffic certainly beats all of those so I must be doing something right. – Anthony

  59. #59 dhogaza
    October 16, 2009

    Though this may be more that Nail slammed WUWT, at least they show they know anti-science when it’s aimed at them. And there’s the hope that they know it in other cases.

    Mark, put down those rose-colored glasses NOW. They’re dangerous …

  60. #60 TrueSceptic
    October 16, 2009

    126 TTT,

    When I first saw posts by such as GM Bird, Hissink, and Dash Riprock, I also assumed they were parodies. Not so: reality is weirder than anything we can imagine.


  61. #61 sod
    October 16, 2009

    ouch. a guy at WUWT has posted a link to the youtube video of the Monckton speech.

    you should take a look at the Lord, if you never saw him speak before.

    funny start: Lord Monckton is opening his speech with a joke about a hawaiian birth certificate. (about 2 minutes into the video)

    so much for “debunking” it.

  62. #62 sod
    October 16, 2009

    i urge you all to watch at least the first 10 minutes of the video (if you can bear it). i promise an awful lot of comical moments.

  63. #63 TrueSceptic
    October 16, 2009

    Lord Munchkin is comedy gold, proving that unintentional humour is hard to beat.

  64. #64 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    I bet he doesn’t talk about his letter to get some environmentally pleasant land near him to be protected from development…

  65. #65 Mark
    October 16, 2009

    Hey, we’d better watch out in case Meg comes round again to tell us all off for dissing His Lord And Master…

  66. #66 Janet Akerman
    October 16, 2009

    “global warming=religion”, is that you Girma?

  67. #67 Deech56
    October 16, 2009

    ZOMG – the comments at WUWT are simply incredible. Birthers, truthers, tenthers, Bigfoot enthusiasts all turned into a stew.


  68. #68 sod
    October 17, 2009

    the video is now showing a link to the [Monckton presentation.](

    it includes about every false statement on climate, that a denialist can bring up. (and of course all the Monckton stuff about DDT, HIV, …) of course most people wouldn t use 174 slides for a 90 minutes presentation, but hey…

    the video is really hard to watch. Monckton is constantly doing weird voices and the way in which he is pointing out his personal contributions to destroy the AGW myth is embarassing.

  69. #69 P. Lewis
    October 17, 2009

    Hee, hee.

    It sounds like the guy doing the intro says “3rd Discount Monckton …” after about 20 seconds.

    I guess he’s mispronouncing Viscount. Perhaps someone with better hearing than me could confirm that. On the other hand …

  70. #70 Mark
    October 17, 2009

    Yup, he’s anglicising the french/latin pronounciation.

    Vie count


    Viz count

    The MC does the latter.

    Mind you, his nose is so far up Monckton’s arse it’s no wonder he can’t get the words out clearly…

  71. #71 Deech56
    October 17, 2009

    The WUWT thread has brought up almost every crackpot idea under the sun (although the mods stopped at our President being JFK’s secret love child – think about that for a minute). This is just the tip of the crazy-berg that we will be seeing over the next year or so. One can see this in the reaction to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the conservative Republican co-wrote an editorial with Sen. John Kerry, and who faced hostility at a town meeting in his home state:

    In the U.S. there is a core of right-wingers who see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries fighting against the tyranny of Federal, UN and One World rule. They see action to prevent disastrous climate change as a campaign to take away people’s rights and cede sovereignty to the UN (the IPCC is not recognized as a scientific body, but as a political body). I don;t know whether it’s a feeling of powerlessness (demographics in the U.S. are shifting) or reflected anger at the effects of globalization, or what, but there is an anger out there.

    The WUWT thread has allowed for the expression of the politics of the site’s readers, and has given a glimpse of what lies behind the scientific arguments made there. How does one have a rational, scientific argument with a birther? It’s like a car wreck you can’t turn away from.

  72. #72 TrueSceptic
    October 17, 2009

    It’s weird that some posters at TWatts have only just realised how many RW nutters inhabit the place.

    PeterT (01:23:49) :
    Blimey!! I don’t think this is a very good look for those good people who want to question the science of AGW, as a matter of fact I don’t want to be associated with someone who is starting to sound like a shrill political conspiratorial nutter, leave that rubbish to the other side and stick with the science.

    Jackbequick (06:07:44) :
    I read this blog looking for something to balance the global warming debate for me. From the questions you put as relevant I have to ask, are you a birther? If so it gives me great pause at taking this site seriously.

    John Egan (06:26:39) :
    I cannot believe that you would reprint this garbage – even as a quote.
    If you wish to tailspin into the “Birther” movement that is, certainly, your prerogative, but you will lose all legitimacy in the larger political and scientific community. One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people. If such sentiment is represented here – then there really is no possibility of discourse.

    Kum Dollison (08:28:36) :
    I, also, am dismayed that WUWT would post this article.

    If I were a first-time visitor to WUWT I would, immediately, come to the conclusion that WUWT is just another ill-informed, nutter outfit, and I would leave, and not come back.

    John Egan (10:15:05) :
    Anthony –

    I have no problems with you removing the materials from the article in question and the comments – in fact, I welcome it. I recognize that I am in a small minority at this website with regards to my political affiliations. And, trust me, I am in an even smaller minority when I question AGW orthodoxy at other websites.

    But, if this website is to focus primarily on issues of climate – and, specifically, on rigorous verification of climate change research findings, then it would be to the benefit of those skeptical of AGW to have a site which is not entirely exclusionary of those from the political left.

    Dan (10:37:35) :
    Well, this has been interesting. At this point, I have questions about the rationality of many of the posters and therefore of the science that I have seen expoused on thissite. Very revealing.

    tolkein (13:02:47) :
    I’m sorry, but when I read about doubts about the legitimacy of the President and stuff about Hawaii, I switched off. Monckton might or might not be wrong. His analysis might be correct. All I read is the right wing equivalent of 9//11 truthers. I read WUWT pretty well every day, but I won’t if it becomes an outpost of wingnuts.

    Dirk M (15:02:45) :
    Well I haven’t read all comments but I’m sure I’ve read enough and while WUWT is one of the best blogs when it comes to challenging AGW I think I’ll pass if this is going to set a new trend. Most posters in this thread are a bunch of crackpots who are pretty much just as bad as the AGW scaremongers.

    And this one is just hilarious.

    gtrip (21:24:21) :
    Typical. I actually think that Anthony may have posted this to “out” the nuts that post on this blog and show them for what they are.

  73. #73 Mark
    October 17, 2009

    I think Jackbequick’s post is quite indicative of how lost some people are.

    Why does *everything* have to have “a balance”?

    We don’t request a balance to the idea that “apple” is spelt that way, or that adding two an three creates five.

    And if everything DOES have a balance, well, why complain about those who balance “The US public voted for him” with people who say “He’s an illegal alien and therefore not president”?

    It’s not that Obama is illegitimately president that’s wrong with jack, but the idea that there’s another side to AGW and it’s represented by the deniers.

  74. #74 TrueSceptic
    October 17, 2009

    151 Mark,

    Quite. Does anyone demand a “balance” in “debates” about evolution, relativity, or quantum mechanics?

    Actually, yes, some do, but we know what sort of types they are.

  75. #75 Mark
    October 17, 2009

    The problem is that these people don’t realise that the balance they are looking for (if they are honestly looking for the issues and uncertainties) are not in WUWT, but in the IPCC report itself.

    They’re at best assuming that the IPCC is as biased as WUWT and assuming that since WUWT is telling them the IPCC is wrong that they must be the “balance”.

  76. #76 dhogaza
    October 17, 2009

    Best post yet from that WUWT: Monckton is actually on *our* side, not theirs!

    Quick analysis of Monkton, can he be trusted?:

    0 K being absolute zero,

    Oxygen is ice below 54.36 K

    Nitrogen is ice below 63.15 K

    CO2 is ice below 194.65 K

    Which of these three gasses is the LEAST POWERFUL absorber of heat?

    Answer: CO2 by a long way. N and O are both four times more powerful at absorbing heat than CO2.

    Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up 99% of the atmosphere.
    CO2 makes up only 0.03811%.

    How much will CO2 influence atmospheric temperature compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen combined?

    Answer: Compared with N and O the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures at these levels is totally insignificant. In other words CO2 has no baring on atmospheric temperature worth talking about.

    Do you think Monkton is ignorant of these facts?

    Answer: Of course not.

    Monkton has danced a merry dance around these simple truths which if he had addressed from the start would have sunk this AGW fraud many years ago.

    Conclusion: Monkton is a New World Order Gatekeeper.

    Poe or schmoe? How can one tell?

  77. #77 Mark
    October 17, 2009

    > Poe or schmoe? How can one tell?

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    There’s often a quote given to “absolve” the idiots or greedy:

    “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence”.

    However, why?

    In fact, why is incompetence on the part of the powerful and influential better than malice on their part?

    A malicious money grabber will be caught and malice means justice gets a look-in. I.e. punishment.

    But if they are incompetent, at *best* on being caught they will be let go. Most likely, especially if influential, given a huge golden parachute (more lost money). And may, it seems nowadays certain, given a more influential post instead.

    Malice can also fade. People have had a change of heart. I don’t know many people who had a change of brain…

    It looks to me like it’s better to have malice as the reason than stupidity.

    Of course in the numbnut you quote, there’s a lot of both. But more malice. After all, they looked up the freezing point of all this, so were not ignorant.

  78. #78 Hank Roberts
    October 17, 2009

    If Monckton had his way, these people would run the country, and the Tories would be very, very happy:

  79. #79 Deech56
    October 17, 2009

    The paranoia is all over:

    The more one hears from far-right activists about their fears and beliefs, the more it seems as if there’s a parallel universe of sorts that doesn’t quite line up well with our own…As David Corn added, these Republicans believe there’s an “underground movement” assembling to resist the coming dictatorship, and believe Fox News and the Tea Parties are “manifestations of this nascent uprising.”

  80. #80 Ed Darrell
    October 19, 2009

    Somebody ought to follow Monckton on his tour. Every stop his exaggerations get wilder and wilder.

    In Minneapolis, for example, DDT won the Nobel Peace Prize, and DDT had got the malaria death rate down to just 50,000 a year!

    No, I’m not making that up:

  81. #81 sod
    October 20, 2009

    interesting swing of events:

    just after publishing a new Monckton piece, including his absurd DDT comments, WATTSUP has a new piece, “taking apart” a scientific paper, showing a hockey stick form in a arctic proxy.

    [the research shows a drop in cold sensitive mosquito-like midges in recent years.](

    WATTSUP and the regulars, being a group of people with strong scientific principles, have come up with an ad hoc explanation: DDT.

    so small globally circulating remains of DDT, which Monckton just described as a harmless thing, that was unfortunetly banned by some communists, has eraticated midges in the arctic. sounds great, doesn t it?

  82. #82 dhogaza
    October 20, 2009

    Sod, you’re making my head hurt. Combine that with the fact that previously worthless, unreliable tree rings now “prove” that GCRs, not CO2, drive climate change and … wow … impressive, no?

  83. #83 sod
    October 20, 2009

    well, to stop me from keeping too confused, i always repeat their basic principle:

    science that supports AGW: bad and false

    science that (seems to) support denialist positions: good and true!

    if you stick to this, everything starts making sense: the banned but harmless DDT kills midges in the arctic? of course!

    all tree rings show the same growth, because cosmic rays (responsible for the recent global warming, ehm, cooling) are of course the same everywhere? makes perfect sense!

  84. #84 Ed D
    October 23, 2009

    Within the remarks seen here, over and over and over, where is the proof he is wrong about his message,,,I understand the problems you elitists get so up tight about, ( who went to the best school, who didnt, who has a better grip on the subject) and by the way, the subject is not who he advised or how, where he had access to or didnt, BUT As I see it, Global Warming and does it or does it not exist as a problem..

    Yes the globe gets warm, every morning the sun comes up somewhere and the Earth gets warmed, I sorta like that arrangement, But to claim we will soon be under water because we melted all our ice, is just a money making premise that people like Gore use to live on… Some say there has been no warming in the past 10 to 12 years, depending where you read it…I just moved back to the US from Mexico, where in the last 3 years, the fruit crops froze and we now see many of the growers giving up and just digging up trees to plant chili. All I heard was, Send me some of that global warming PLEASE…

  85. #85 dhogaza
    October 23, 2009

    OK, Ed D wins, thousands of hard-working, highly-trained scientists are wrong.

    Phew, glad we solved this global warming problem so easily …

  86. #86 Fran Barlow
    October 24, 2009

    Phew, glad we solved this global warming problem so easily

    Quite right Dog. It’s amazing how such apparently complex problems can be resolved with a couple of well chosen references to Al Gore and the conditions for fruit growing in California. You do know the Vikings grew grapes don’t you?

    Now, if only the problems associated with constantly rising 30-year average temperatures, disappearing sea-ice extent, decomposition of the permafrost, disappearance of snowpack, loss of habitat, loss of variuous tropical and temperate forests, increasingly acid seas and so forth could be dismissed with the same ease, my day would be err … much sunnier.

  87. #87 Ed Darrell
    October 28, 2009

    You know what I haven’t seen as I’ve reviewed these posts? I haven’t seen one single refutation of a fact he’s put forth on his tour by anyone in this group.

    Take your hands away from covering your eyes, then.

    What? You aren’t using your hands?

    In that case, slowly pull your head out . . .

  88. #88 Ed Darrell
    December 19, 2009

    But to claim we will soon be under water because we melted all our ice, is just a money making premise that people like Gore use to live on.

    How much money can you document that Gore is making from the Maldive Islands?

    If you’re certain there’s no threat from warming, why not invest in beachfront property there, now? It will pay off big, when the Maldives don’t sink.

  89. #89 Dan Gleibitz
    February 8, 2010

    Monckton lies:
    7:32 “Now we have as scientific phrase, we scientists, for this…”

    Call him on it. Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.