Deltoid

Shorter Monckton:

I am angry. You can be too. Ask me how.

Posted by: Ezzthetic | November 30, 2009 11:51 PM

Monckton does appear to be a little eccentric, in an English sort of way.

This rumor of a 'world conspiracy' won't go away, even Nick Minchin gave it a mention. But I don't expect to see black choppers any time soon.

o/t Noticed that Watts picked up 2 million hits last month and by some strange coincidence the graph looks like a hockey stick.

Posted by: el gordo | December 1, 2009 4:57 AM

David@4

I suspect he lives in a partial fantasy world

Yes, one where he is a member of the House of Lords...

Posted by: Eamon | December 1, 2009 8:14 AM

I got a question and a request for help. Scientific American has put up an article titled: Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. We got a deluge of Denialist and I got one who claims to be the author of a peer reviewed paper that reveal Mann and Briffa to be a hoax. I can not find any evidence that this paper is peer reviewed and have taken shots at some of the more glaring mistakes, but if those of you with more math chops could kindly come over and give a hand it would be much appreciated.

The Scientific American Article is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

The "paper" is here: http://www.biocab.org/InsolationTreeringsGrowth.html

Thank you all in advance.

Posted by: Trent1492 | December 2, 2009 12:47 PM

@ Former Skeptic,

Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Trent1492 | December 2, 2009 4:57 PM

This is most disconcerting. How can these pretend/junk science warmist sites even affect to understand peer review with such pathetic knowledge of the peerage in the first place?

Not giving Christopher Robin, the Discount Mountebank of Benchwarmer, his titles, or acknowledging his Platinum Nobel Peace Prize Brooch awarded for Medicine in Physics from the Norwegian School of Economics makes a mockery of the scientific process.

I can tell the sun, clouds and climate are all an Enigma you'll all never win the prize for solving.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | December 3, 2009 12:55 AM

@True Sceptic,

If you want, I can show you that he can't do simple arithmetic.

Please do. He is now throwing math equations everywhere in an attempt to obfuscate, his incompetence.

Posted by: Trent1492 | December 3, 2009 11:45 AM

13 Trent,

If you've got the time (you might find it entertaining in an odd sort of way), follow this thread.

If you haven't the time or are just too sensible, I collated his posts here.

Note the frequent gibberish about "amplitudes" and "ciphers".

(TrueSceptic there is me.)

Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 3, 2009 12:31 PM

16 Trent,

Glad you liked it/them.

A denydiot might argue that we were too stupid to understand biocab's "proof" but how would they explain his constant evasion and the fact that he couldn't even keep his own story straight? Of course they are oblivious to all that.

BTW I can recommend the JREF for all sorts of discussions, if you can tolerate liars and wackos being given far too much leeway (IMO).

Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 3, 2009 7:39 PM

TS.

I had no idea that Nasif/Biocab was so loopy - and so arithmetically inconpetent!

How is it that folk such as he and Girma Orssengo manage to convince tertiary institutions to let them darken the doors, let alone to confer degrees upon them?

I remember decades ago when I first entered my bachelor's degree, the student's handbook had a small paragraph, buried somewhere in the hundreds of pages, that said that the criminal prosecution of a graduate might provide grounds for the revoking of a degree, where the crime directly involved a discreditting of the University.

I don't think that such clauses are used these days, but I reckon that it should still hold - if you bring academic discredit, embarrassment or other damage to the reputation of your awarding institution, in any way that relates to their having conferred a degree upon you, that same institution should have the option to revoke the degree.

Posted by: Bernard J. | December 4, 2009 2:17 AM

19 Bernard,

I missed something important there.

There is no bottom to stupid, or bottom to dishonesty, when it comes to Denydiots.

There are resident AGWSceptics at JREF, 'mhaze' being the most persistent, who never find fault in any denialist claims, no matter how obviously stupid or dishonest. You can see a perfect example of that if you follow that very tedious thread.

More generally, you can see the very same behaviour with, say, Climate Fraudit. When has McIntyre ever questioned obvious idiocy or dishonesty from the "sceptics"?

EVER?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 4, 2009 7:01 PM