Climate Denial Crock on Monckton

Peter Sinclair‘s latest video is on Christopher Monckton:

Comments

  1. #1 Former Skeptic
    April 11, 2010

    LOL. There’s a part II! I’m not sure if even that’s enough to cover all the crap originating from the Discount.

  2. #2 Phil
    April 11, 2010

    Well written sir.

  3. #3 Lars Karlsson
    April 11, 2010
  4. #4 John
    April 11, 2010

    Very funny Lars.

  5. #5 Ezzthetic
    April 11, 2010

    That said, I think it’s very poor form of Crikey to keep portaying Monckton as the cookie monster.

  6. #6 John
    April 11, 2010

    What has that got to do with anything, Ezzthetic? Is the video by Crikey? Is there anyone from Crikey here?

  7. #7 Mike
    April 11, 2010

    Good vid. The facts of the situation will of course be entirely lost on Monckton’s fan base of angry conservative retirees, but good vid anyway.

  8. #8 John
    April 11, 2010

    I wouldn’t worry, Mike, they’re too busy writing hilarious limericks and amusing song parodies at Bishop Hill.

    Oh, the joys of retirement!

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    April 11, 2010

    To borrow from Phillip Adams, Peter Sinclair deserves a gold star and a koala stamp for all his efforts.

    I would love to see Sinclair produce a full-length documentary one day – perhaps he could call it “Climate Denial: Crock of the New Millenium”.

  10. #10 sod
    April 11, 2010

    just perfect. as always.

  11. #11 lord_sidcup
    April 11, 2010

    Newscaster fails to do basic fact checking – “Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher”. Policy advisor maybe, but he was never a science advisor.

  12. #12 chrisd
    April 11, 2010

    Sinclair is a national treasure.

  13. #13 Ezzthetic
    April 11, 2010

    What has that got to do with anything, Ezzthetic?

    Nothing, John.

    It’s just funny, that’s all.

  14. #14 Bud
    April 11, 2010

    In a beautiful meeting of minds, Monckton is now climate cchange spokesman for UKIP.

    [http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1363-monckton-joins-ukip](http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1363-monckton-joins-ukip)

  15. #15 John
    April 11, 2010

    Together at last!

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    April 11, 2010

    From [Bud's link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt.php#comment-2416633):

    Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.

    At a press conference in Copenhagen he said: “For some years I have been concerned that the democracy into which I was born has become a bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars who we, the people, do not elect, cannot question, cannot hold to account, cannot remove and cannot replace.

    Indeed.

    Substitute “bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars” with “previously-feudal monarchy run by hereditary aristocrats/peers”, and, well…

  17. #17 frankbi
    April 11, 2010
  18. #18 John
    April 11, 2010

    frankbi, that was truly chilling.

  19. #19 Lionel A Smith
    April 11, 2010

    From Bernard J at #16

    ‘Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.’

    Yes. And last weekend I was approached by one of UKIP’s faithful trying to impress a leaflet on me. I said, ‘no thanks, your friend Monckton is a snake-oil salesman.’

    There then ensued a discussion in which the UKIPper offered every one of those oh so familiar denialist arguments, cooling, CO2 food not pollution, climategate, glaciers, arctic sea ice growing etc, etc, one by one. Whack-a-mole was played out again.

    Clearly this UKIPper had memorised the Monckton script well.

    I wonder if he followed my suggestion to visit here and RealClimte etc.

  20. #20 dhogaza
    April 11, 2010

    Bernard J, that is a rather ironic statement coming from a hereditary Viscount who frequently lies about being a (non-elected) member of the House of Lords, isn’t it?

  21. #21 Erasmussimo
    April 11, 2010

    I’d like to add my kudos for a beautifully executed video.

  22. #22 TrueSceptic
    April 11, 2010

    I’m guessing that Peter Sinclair will receive one of Lord Munchkin’s vague threats of legal action, combined with accusations of “interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere”.

  23. #23 John
    April 11, 2010

    Don’t be surprised if he pulls a Watts and tries to have the video removed.

  24. #24 cynicus
    April 11, 2010

    #20, Dhoghaza: And also notice the striking similarity between the logo’s on the top-left side of his presentation sheets and the UK Parliaments logo. He sure wants to give the viewer the impression of being an Lord… the poor Monckton… zero votes he got.

  25. #25 Dappledwater
    April 11, 2010

    #5, at least Monckton’s doppelganger, the cookie monste, makes some sense.

  26. #26 Gilbert
    April 11, 2010

    I beleive he is not a Member of the House of Lords, yet the logo on his presentation slides (e.g. at 2:44) looks awfully like that of the House of Lords.

    From [House of Lords](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldhouse/47/4703.htm)

    “House of Lords logo … Save for the provision set out in the guidance on the use of House of Lords headed paper and envelopes, the House of Lords logo should be used by Members for purposes relating to the discharge of their Parliamentary duties only, and for no other purpose. Members should take care in ensuring that the House of Lords logo is not used in such a way that might bring discredit upon the House.”

    Shurely shum mishtake?

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    April 11, 2010
  28. #28 climateprogressive
    April 11, 2010

    #26: “I beleive he is not a Member of the House of Lords, yet the logo on his presentation slides (e.g. at 2:44) looks awfully like that of the House of Lords.

    From House of Lords

    “House of Lords logo … Save for the provision set out in the guidance on the use of House of Lords headed paper and envelopes, the House of Lords logo should be used by Members for purposes relating to the discharge of their Parliamentary duties only, and for no other purpose. Members should take care in ensuring that the House of Lords logo is not used in such a way that might bring discredit upon the House.”

    I’ve often wondered how he gets away with recolouring the House of Lords logo in a shade that could well be reasonably mistaken for “porn-pink”!

    Shome other mishtake, shurely. Am I colour-blind or is it the regrettable affliction of the “Good Lord”??

    I think I might have to ask my MP to investigate ;)

  29. #29 Jeremy C
    April 11, 2010

    If I read correctly the Wikipedia entry about Monckton’s grandfather young Monckton was about 5 when the UK government gave his grandfather a heriditary title, perhaps one of the last, if not the last in the UK as these days any new Lords or peers are ‘life peers’ a bit like Valerie Amos the present British High Commissioner to Australia (for Australian readers you can see her in action on the panel of Q&A a few editions back providing a very, very marked contrast to our man Monckton).

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    April 11, 2010

    I can just imagine Monty Python’s take…

    He’s not a lord; he’s a very common boy!

  31. #31 TrueSceptic
    April 11, 2010

    30 Bernard,

    I notice that Monty Python crops up whenever Lord Munchkin is mentioned. Don’t forget ‘The Upper Class Twit Of The Year’ featuring (love these names)

    Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith

    Simon Zinc-Trumpet-Harris

    Nigel Incubator-Jones

    Gervaise Brook-Hamster

    Oliver St. John-Mollusc

  32. #32 Fran Barlow
    April 11, 2010

    I just showed the video to my nearly 17-year-old. His response: Monckton was so pwned.

    Seriously, Sinclair deserves a huge vote of thanks from all of us.

  33. #33 climateprogressive
    April 11, 2010

    On the Python subtopic, this predates Monckton, yet it does the job nevertheless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

    As to words – McIntyre sounds rather tinny to me! Enjoy the video!

  34. #34 watchingthedeniers
    April 11, 2010

    Ah, “The Monck”.., he’s not still running around claiming to be a member of the House of Lord’s is he? He’s hereditary peer. As to his status with the HoL:

    “…Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as “a bizarre constitutional abortion.”

    Again Wikipedia: “…Formerly, most of them were entitled to a seat in House of Lords, but since the House of Lords Act 1999 only ninety-two are permitted to sit…”

    Instead of having simply having it handed to you for being born into nobility, who actually have to compete in a democratic process!

    Seems as though his peers did not want him the club.

    Surely they are in league with the “warmists” in trying to suppress “The Truth” about the global warming hoax.

  35. #35 Bernard j.
    April 11, 2010

    Graham Chapman even resembles Monckton.

    If only the Pythons were together now – imagine the parodies they might do…

  36. #36 Eli Rabett
    April 11, 2010

    Nailed Monckton.

  37. #37 frankis
    April 11, 2010

    Just excellent. A comic opera saw Christopher Monckton coming a hundred and thirty years out, Peter Sinclair noticed, and hilarity ensues.

  38. #38 MFS
    April 11, 2010

    Joanne Nova has published another of her sad diatribes in ABC’s The Drum . This time it’s about the CRU hacked emails, and subsequent inquiry.
    She’s using the same old denialist arguments rehashed to say… surprise, surprise… WHITEWASH! :)

  39. #39 Dudley Hamfisted-Smythe Esq. IV
    April 11, 2010

    As a member of the better classes of British society I’d like to condemn the above youtube video of the British upper crust in the strongest possible terms.

    Most of my friends are thoroughly decent people and not the least bit vacuous or sociopathic. Hardly any of them are bothered by the tinniness of our lower and servile classes, and none of them hass ever sacked a servant named Simkins instead of having a bath. Each of them did it while having a bath. As for shooting caribou on your back lawn — who hasn’t? If you don’t cull the little blighters they will absolutely make a mess not only of your croquet hoops, but your bowling green as well. And where would we be then? It would be Cambridge v Oxford 1934 all over again.

    Dudley Hamfisted-Smythe Esq. IV
    12a Butthole Commons
    Pratt’s Bottom
    Essex

    PS I love a good laugh as much as the next chap. The next chap however doesn’t like laughing much at all. Whenever it happens, he has to get his swarthy and muscular manservant and pool boy Jorge to administer the heimlich manoeuvre. He likes this, perhaps because Jorge is so woody.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Joanne Nova has published another of her sad diatribes in ABC’s The Drum .

    This one seems even more full of it than usual. I’ve posted a few comments…

  41. #41 MFS
    April 12, 2010

    Lotharsson: Your comments aren’t showing yet (2:48 EST). I addressed specifically her hilarious graphs. Hey The Drum sure do take their time to put comments up. With the standard of some that get through you wonder what takes so long… it’s not like the moderating is all that stringent.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Your comments aren’t showing yet (2:48 EST).

    I noticed. Not sure why. I’ve found in the past some comments simply never appeared.

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Some of my comments have just appeared, some way down though.

    And Ms Nova has responded to a comment wondering about her politics or which organisation she represents:

    I represent myself. I’m a freelance science writer. I am beholden to no one. Most of what I do is pro bono, ie I’m effectively a charity worker. My unassailable moral high ground doesn’t make me right. The strength of my logic and reasoning do.

    Wow!

  44. #44 silkworm
    April 12, 2010

    Here’s a humorous video of Monckton feeding his BS to a Bible thumping committee member. The clip is entitled “CO2 is Plant Food & God Said No Flood Again.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrb6Vis5gak&feature=related

    PS. Anthony Watts is a creationist. Why is global warming denialism so attractive to creationists?

  45. #45 Mike
    April 12, 2010

    I just visited The Drum and felt physically ill from the sheer stupidity of some of the denialist arguments there. Won’t make that mistake again.

    As for Nova, I think she has many things in common with Ann Coulter – a very loose grip on reality being one of them.

  46. #46 justagreenie
    April 12, 2010

    I see McLean has turned up on the Nova thread (who could have guessed) arguing, well, saying, that there is no way to know that the extra CO2 is caused by humans (!) – “Your assertions are mere anecdotal evidence of some warming. They are meaningless in the context of manmade climate change unless you can prove that they are due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    There is no end to this insanity!

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    justagreenie, to be fair to McLean he’s only talking about those particular assertions – which IIRC were not intended to *make* the case that anthropogenic causes were at work – but I have little doubt he’d generalise his response to most claims of mechanisms for AGW.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    April 12, 2010

    Surprisingly, I have been moderated off The Drum more than I have anywhere else except at WUWT and at the American Thinker [sic]. The last time was for telling Alan Moran that he was not acquainted with scientific fact.

    in a similar vein I posted the comment below on the Nova thread. In order to circumvent the high likelihood that it too will not pass moderation, it will be nice to have it recorded here.

    My post was a response to Roy asking “Is Joanne Nova a Meteorologist or a Microbiologist?” (12 Apr 2010 1:02:40pm)…

    She is neither. JoNova, or Joanne Codling as many know her, is a former TV presenter – ironically, of science.

    I say “ironically”, because although she mouths many impressive words, she fails to construct actual scientific narratives, especially in climatology, that would pass the scrutiny of any properly trained professional.

    Of course, much of what she gabbles seems plausible to the lay people in her audience, but this is mere preaching to the choir, rather than proper science.

    She might imagine otherwise, and she might promote herself as a scientific aithority, but “Jo Nova” is not a scientist. In fact, if she were an undergrad science student who submitted essays/reports to me in the subjects that I taught, she’d fail her courses with the quality of material that she presents as ‘fact’.

    It might serve well as ‘opinion’, but it is opinion separated from science by a rather wide gulf.

  49. #49 justagreenie
    April 12, 2010

    Lotharsson – I don’t think you should be fair to McLean. His second paragraph reads “Don’t look to the IPCC for proof. Before Climategate it was clear that the IPCC relied on dodgy models and now we find that the dodgy models were tuned to match dodgy temperatures supplied by Jones and his cronies.”

    How do these people live with themselves? Do they think they are fighting the good fight?

  50. #50 allen
    April 12, 2010

    Lotharsson @ 43
    I can understand your need to ridicule Jo after the savaging you got when trading comments with her, hardly surprising really as judging by number and length of your comments you prize volume over content.
    You scatter gun approach is akin to the idiot with a thousand plans, as is to be expected the vast majority fail but you see the one that works as confirmation of your genius.

  51. #51 Mike
    April 12, 2010

    @50, Jo Nova does a good enough job of ridiculing herself.

    For example, her 2nd para starts with the crusty old “trick to hide the decline”, which she harps on about for a while and which must’ve now been explained 10000 times or more. It is openly discussed in several scientific papers and has always been public knowledge.

    Nor has she bothered to read about the papers on urban heat island effect.

    In fact, one eventually wonders what she has actually read in the published scientific literature. I would have to conclude at face value, “very little”.

  52. #52 Jeremy C
    April 12, 2010

    Thanks for the pointer to Jo Nova’s post on the drum. Its really very interesting reading it as lots of people on there are alive to Colding’s line of argument.

    The funny bit is reading Colding’s replies. She has to be polite, unlike her blog, otherwise the drum moderator will remove her posts and it must be really hard for her because she is getting told off left right and centre and she can’t scream at them in print as she does on her blog. Thanks Lothaarsson et al for blogging on her post.

  53. #53 Sou
    April 12, 2010

    I must have lost count, but the article of Nova’s seems to tip the ABC’s “balance” in favour of the deniers.

    Also, Jo’s got a lot of posts supporting her, compared to the foolish article by the IPA a couple of days ago, which was pretty well drowned out in the comments (at least last time I looked). I expect Nova gathered her followers on her blog to go and make comments. And it looks as if they are busy ‘alerting moderators’ to get rid of any posts they don’t like. Not nice.

  54. #54 Sou
    April 12, 2010

    OT but Four Corners is on the Hunter Valley coal mines tonight. Might be worth a look.

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2867659.htm

  55. #55 allen mcmahon
    April 12, 2010

    @52

    @51 “very little” a personal admission or a killer retort?
    @52 Jo is always polite on her blog even if some of the bloggers are not.
    @53

    I expect Nova gathered her followers on her blog to go and make comments. And it looks as if they are busy ‘alerting moderators’ to get rid of any posts they don’t like. Not nice.

    Incorrect but more palatable than the truth perhaps?

  56. #56 stepanovich
    April 12, 2010

    allen mcmahon:

    JoNova is right… Jonova is right… JoNova is right… Om… Om… Om…

  57. #57 Sou
    April 12, 2010

    Crikey, she’s even sending her congregation (#55) over here.

    Believe it or not, distorting the truth is NOT okay, even if you’re polite about it (which Nova is most definitely not) :(

  58. #58 el gordo
    April 12, 2010

    Get a life Sou, the warmists have been distorting the truth for years….veritas liberabit vos.

  59. #59 Think Big
    April 12, 2010

    @55 It was the same last time she wrote an article on the Drum. The story was bombarded with comments by many of her regulars.
    They are some of the most hard-core, blinkered deniers around.

  60. #60 allen mcmahon
    April 12, 2010

    @56 ouch! amazing wit and sparkling repartee MENSA must value your contributions.
    @57 but Jo is polite and its rather naughty of you to distort the truth right after moralizing about it.

    /
    .

  61. #61 Think Big
    April 12, 2010

    @60 Polite? If you call belittling people and being both arrogant and condescending “polite” then maybe.

    Well I guess she doesn’t swear.

  62. #62 stewart
    April 12, 2010

    Psychopaths and liars are most effective when they are polite. So what?

  63. #63 Sou
    April 12, 2010

    @60 At least you haven’t tried to perpetuate the lie that Nova doesn’t deliberately deceive, even though your concept of ‘polite’ would not meet the criteria of most people.

    Just one of a myriad examples where she is deliberately trying to deceive:
    “He makes excuses that a “trick” is a clever way of doing something, which it might be, but when it’s a clever way to “hide a decline” it’s obviously deceptive. (And deception when money is involved, as it certainly is here on a massive scale, is fraud.)”

    If she doesn’t know about the actual meaning by now then she’s either stupid or prefers to remain ignorant. And I don’t believe either is the case, so that leaves deliberate intent to deceive the public.

    Who is trying to defraud humanity? Ms Nova is a prime candidate. She wants to win political points for herself now and let the coming generations pay the huge price for her perfidy. The word traitor is not too strong for people like Ms Nova.

  64. #64 Mike
    April 12, 2010

    @58 and 60:

    I think if you watch the video you can fairly clearly see who is distorting the truth.

    Funny that Monckton still wants to cherry-pick the 1998 temperature anomaly to “prove” long term cooling trends. That is soooo yesterday’s denialist tactic. We’ve moved on now to the “grand conspiracy”, and are in the process of uncovering the “conspiracies to hide the conspiracies”.

    Also alive and well of course is the tactic of demanding the raw climate data and source code very sneakily [kept under lock and key](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/) where no-one can find it.

  65. #65 cynicus
    April 12, 2010

    Quiz question: Is El Gordo Monckton’s virtual personality for this blog, trying to impress with Latin and all that crock, or just a poor attempt to copycat?

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2010

    I hate to wade into this discussion but IMHO Nova is a hack, and a pretty useless one at that, too.

    A couple of days ago she wrote an appalling piece on her web site in which she belittled an attempt by an attorney in the UK to classify ecocide as a crime. She goes on to jest at such a law against what she percieves as ‘unimportant’ organisms that include (in her words) *flat-fish, garden-variety weeds, fungus, and algae*.

    To be fair, Lomborg did the same thing is his wretched book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. The thrust of their arguments appears to be that man has evolved above and beyond any constraints imposed by natural systems, and that most of nature is probably superfluous to human ‘requirements’ as well.

    Sadly, as a population ecologist, I have to respond to this kind of kindergarten-level understanding of my field all of the time. The fact is that many of the organisms that would probably be denigrated by the likes of Nova and Lomborg perform critical regulating functions as parts of broader ecological communities in which they exist. There is little doubt, for instance, that if we were to lose nitrogen fixing bacteria alone, our species would be in deep trouble. Add to that pollinating insects, pest controlling arthropods, and a suite of ecological services performed in the soil and we now are fully aware that conditions – services in lay English – emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales from natural systems that regulate flows of water and nutrients, break down wastes, regenerate the soil and atmosphere and perform numerous other functions that permit humans to exist and persist. Through functional redundancy where different species fill similar ecological roles, natural systems are resistant to both man-made and natural perterbations and also exhibit resilience in being able to return to some equilibrium after a major disturbance. Lose biodiversity cumulatively over time and these services break down, with large economic and social costs for humanity.

    We are now aware – or we should be – that regulating services alone are worth trillions of dollars to the global economy every year, and far more than the sum of all GDPs of all nations combined (see discussion by Costanza et al., Nature, 1997). Basically, natural systems are worth the sum of many of their parts, but even now our understanding of the ways in which these interactions are played out is still in its relative infancy. We can say with confidence that natural systems sustain man in many ways that go beyond direct consumptive or aesthetic value. Given the importance of ecosystem services in sustaining civilization, and our poor knowledge of the roles played by species and genetically distinct populations, we exterminate any at our potential peril.

    It is for this reason that I generally steer well clear of weblogs run for ideological reasons. One brief foray into Nova’s site was enough for me to stomach.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    allen – thanks very much for providing a good laugh :-) Humour is always appreciated. I certainly feel like I’ve been savaged by Ms Nova – albeit about as savagely as could be managed by a particularly ferocious toothless baby. Your own evidence-free assertions do not add anything to that level of mauling ;-)

    Trading comments with Ms Nova has proven to also be quite amusing, as has been previously reported on Deltoid threads. Her concept of the insulating properties of a vacuum in the context of atmospheric physics – and her repeated assertions that she is too right, dammit – were a big hit. And her admonishment to come to her blog to learn in a post where I pointed out that she misrepresented the greenhouse gas signature (stratospheric cooling) which was plainly visible even on her cherry-picked and misleading graphs which she asked readers to eyeball rather than look at the statistical analysis provided in the paper she referenced were priceless :-)

    But hey, in the land of the blind, the loud and confident sightless person is the regent, no?

    Jo is always polite on her blog even if some of the bloggers are not.

    She’s certainly not always polite at The Drum – I speak from personal experience. She’s quite capable of pointed little ad homs if she’s got no come back to people pointing out that she’s clearly not following her own self-proclaimed mantra of “following the evidence”…

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    …IMHO Nova is a hack…

    This also seems clear from the latest post at The Drum which is full of zombie talking points. And from earlier interactions with her at The Drum.

    She talks a reasonable game about how to be scientific – but utterly fails to follow through, and berates those who do but reach different opinions for not agreeing with her cherrypicked sources and authorities.

  69. #69 hexkid
    April 12, 2010

    Dudley Hamfisted-Smythe Esq. IV @39 is obviously a fraud. It takes very little investigation on Google Maps to ascertain that Pratt’s Bottom is a village in Kent not Essex as you claim in your address.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Here’s an example of Ms Nova’s devastating rebuttal to someone pointing out that the “hide the decline” comment has been explained, the underlying work published in journals, and does not mean something nefarious was afoot:

    Hmmm. So you believe someone who uses “tricks” to “hide” things from you? More pity you.

    Evidence-free re-assertion of the original fallacies which have – I’m guessing that really qualifies as a mauling in allen’s book ;-)

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Speaking of Ms Nova’s legendary politeness and disdain for ad hom, at the Drum someone called JoNova wrote:

    Deep Fritz, anonymous chicken that you are, your ad hom lies and baseless slurs would embarrass any media organisation.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Ms Nova savaging my comment that analysis shows that her suggestion that poor station siting has produced a warming basis is unfounded in reality:

    You ought to know that with statistics they can homogenize the “urban” versus “rural” sets to come up with any answer they want. The photos of air conditioners and air ports can’t be statistically removed.

  73. #73 Chris O'Neill
    April 12, 2010

    el gordo:

    Get a life Sou

    Hypocrisy is one of the symptoms of el gordo’s psychosis.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2010

    Sorry to continue the Nova theme, but perhaps this also is considered “savaging” by allen?

    Yes, please, do provide some evidence. I’d like to see one empirical paper backing any catastrophic warming – anything over 1.5 degrees.

    Yes, please. The IPCC will hail you as a hero if you find the paper they can’t.

    So…about those dozen or so independent lines of evidence reported by the IPCC that indicate climate sensitivity > 1.5 degrees…

  75. #75 TrueSceptic
    April 12, 2010

    93 Sou,

    I found this at JoNova.

    Trials for people who twist, deny, and distort science? Bring it on, I say. Skeptical science would triumph in any court where real evidence was cross-examined.

    Oh, the irony! Yes, the liars, delusionals and pseudosceptics would get exposed and real sceptics (you know, actual scientists who publish in reputable peer-reviewed journals) would win every time. Does she even understand the words she uses?

  76. #76 TrueSceptic
    April 12, 2010

    63, doh!

  77. #77 Jim Eager
    April 12, 2010

    Side-stepping the JNova bash to get back on topic….

    The Rabbet recounts how BYU geology prof Barry Bickmore takes Potty Peer Monckton to the wood shed:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html

    And Tamino throws a few cords on top for good measure:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    April 12, 2010

    Joanne Nova/Codling took exception to [my post on The Drum](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt.php#comment-2417970):

    Psst Bernard, is this your idea of “research”. You only have to read my bio to know that you’re wrong. Not that my qualifications matter. My writing stands or falls on it’s merits, not on any paper certificate. [13 Apr 2010 1:02:42am]

    To which I replied, with high chance of not passing moderation or avoiding “reporting”:

    Psst Joanne.

    I have read your bio, and that’s where I got my facts.

    Your most recognisable stint was as host for Channel 9′s series, unless you believe that your ABC audience gave you more significant recognition. This is why I listed it in a post that was likely to be pulled if I said too much, as has happened before. I will risk exactly this, however, in order to elaborate as I wanted to the first time…

    Your work post-Honours as a performer and then a manager for Shell’s Science Circus, and then as an ‘associate lecturer’ helping to “develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years” does not constitute working as a “scientist”. Nor does your “focus… on the science of monetary systems, financial history, [and] the gold market”.

    Your work to promote climate change denial is not science either, but if you disagree I am happy to hear your explanation to the contrary.

    Writing a children’s book on science does not constitute working as a scientist, and nor does “working as a cartoonist, graphic designer and illustrator”.

    You are not a meteorologist, and although you did Honours under a microbiologist your project title, “Molecular biology and muscle regeneration” does not indicate that it was a microbiological topic – at least, not the sort of microbiology that I used to teach. So you are not a microbiologist, and indeed, by anyone’s standard acceptance of what a scientists is, doing an Honours project and then not working in a straight scientific discipline does not constitute being a “scientist”.

    One may be well acquainted with the work of scientists without actually being a scientist. You are one example of this. Further, one may be well acquainted with the work of scientists without actually understanding all of their science, or presenting it accurately to a lay audience. Again, you are one example of this. Of course, if you disagree you have but to explain how it is that you understand the physics of climate change as well as physicists and climatologists do, and to guarantee that all of the material that you have published is completely accurate to the best contemporary understanding of the professionals in the various disciplines.

    As I am likely to been “reported” for this post I will put a copy up on Deltoid, so that it does not disappear into the æther.

    If you believe that I am incorrect in my assertion that none of your professional work constitutes you being a scientist, I am happy to delve into it further. I may miss posts here though, because of the awkward format for reading posts, so you can find me at Deltoid.

  79. #79 frankis
    April 13, 2010

    The ABC is publishing defamation and libel by Nova but censoring out comments such as Bernard’s that point out what is obvious: Nova libels scientists while claiming to be one herself, yet by any reasonable understanding of the word “scientist” she is none. Allen above says she’s “polite”, I suppose because he hasn’t seen her use any bad words; it’s OK by him that she is “politely” defaming honest people while lying (or deluding herself) about being a scientist herself. Modern times!

    She’s not a big enough fish for Peter Sinclair and Crock of the Week to bother with, but she is a bad enough character.

  80. #80 Mike
    April 13, 2010

    @79, yeah it’s very weird isn’t it?

    I mean, individual scientists have now been exonerated by two recent and completely separate inquiries, with more undoubtedly to come (hard to see the others in progress turning up any new damning evidence), yet Nova and her fan club get away with quite flagrantly accusing them of being liars, frauds, and committing criminal acts.

    I’d actually love it to go to trial, notwithstanding that I fully accept the scientists would not need that stress. It would be Kitzmiller all over again. I could see a Republican-appointed Judge making a ruling accusing denialists of “breathtaking inanity” (which is, after all, an accurate description of almost everything they say and do), perjury (which given their record on the internet would seem likely too), and so on. It would be entered into the permanent record and be on show for all to see.

  81. #81 Mike
    April 13, 2010

    I hasten to add it would have to be a civil trial, as there is clearly not enough evidence to press charges against scientists for anything whatsoever.

    Which brings up another interesting thing: I wonder how much police time the denialists have so far wasted urging them to criminally investigate?

  82. #82 allen mcmahon
    April 13, 2010

    @63 perfidy what a quaint word I do so love hyperbole
    @67 I am pleased that you appreciate humor there is little of it in climate blogs and on gets so bored with righteous indignation. A minor quibble re qoute
    In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, more succinct and packs a better punch.
    @79 defamation and libel how incendiary, what we need is an “eco-cide” law, stuff – democracy and to hell with freedom of speech.
    You may trivialize Monckton, Nova et. al. but you underestimate their ability to shape opinion in the general community. Political will and public opinion go hand in hand. The MSM is basically immoral but are quick to sense change and skeptics are certainly getting plenty of air time, a major shift from even twelve months ago.
    BTW I see no conspiracy by scientists or other groups that support the GW hypothesis. I am sure that they are honest in their beliefs and regardless of whether they are correct or not they are making a positive contribution to our understanding of mechanisms that drive earths’ climate. I am also dubious of ‘big oil’ conspiracy theories as well.I do however believe we share our planet with shape shifting lizards.

  83. #83 Sou
    April 13, 2010

    I’ve sent a note to the ABC complaining about the Nova Unleashed article on the grounds that it defames people and contains false and misleading statements that are easily shown to be so.

    The online complaints form is here:
    http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complaints.htm

  84. #84 Paul UK
    April 13, 2010

    Bud:

    >In a beautiful meeting of minds, Monckton is now climate cchange spokesman for UKIP.

    Thanks for that info.
    Went to a hustings last week organised by the RSPB just before he apparently joined and the UKIP candidate was obviously a skeptic and despite the fact that all questions were about conservation, he managed to include immigration and the EU in every answer.

  85. #85 Fran Barlow
    April 13, 2010

    Alan said in part:

    I do however believe we share our planet with shape shifting lizards.

    From personal experience of the denier movement no doubt …

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    April 13, 2010

    Graeme Bird has turned up on Nova’s latest Drum thread.

    I guess he’s shaken off his tarring and feathering at Pharyngula.

    And Ms Nova is doing her best to emulate Bird’s reflexive “no it’s not” or “you’re lying” or “where’s the evidence” tics with comments such as

    Sou, still got no evidence eh?

  87. #87 SteveC
    April 13, 2010

    Jeff Harvey, having had a look at that thread it strikes me it’s Nova and her Ayn Rand-worshipping acolytes mouthing off whatever thought wanders into their looking for something to bump into. It’s so far off the dial that even the Stupid-o-Tronic Meter2000 app I’ve got running reported a failure code. What Nova and her brainwashed coterie either forget or conveniently overlook is that in most “developed” (now there’s a word to conjure with) nations there are already laws that restrict the capacity of individuals, groups, companies etc etc to harm, kill or otherwise cause the loss or extinction of species, populations and ecological communities. On top of that, there are also laws and regulations that prevent or limit any body’s right to pollute water, air or soil. Now I’m not saying any of these laws, regulations, codes of practice and whatnot are all that effective (anyone with eyes who wanders outside can see they’re not), but I would like to see what Nova and any one of her devotees would do if (say) Orica (the Company Formerly Known As ICI) decided to set up shop next door. I’d lay any odds they’d spend all day and all night for months on end furiously researching what rights they had to object up to and including environmental pollution regulations, and any and every rule, regulation, code of practice and Act that even mentioned the words “endangered”, “species” and “impact”.

    I’d pay good money to see Nova perform that kind of backflip (with pike. Or tench. Or carp. Oh, carp, definitely carp).

  88. #88 SteveC
    April 13, 2010

    Above, first sentence, insert “head” after “wandering into their”.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    April 13, 2010

    This is too good to ignore – Ms Nova:

    How could I attack [ad hom] the anonymous MFS?

    Apparently you can’t ad hom someone if they don’t use their real name. Astounding! Does “Jo Nova” count as a “real name”?

    And:

    A PhD isn’t worth anything any more. They give them out to people who think insults are a form of scientific reasoning. It’s a travesty.

    Do I detect some Ph.D. envy? Perhaps inspired by the thought that even John McLean can allegedly get into a Ph.D. program? Surely not!

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    April 13, 2010

    A minor quibble re qoute In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, more succinct and packs a better punch.

    Indeed, but it is not apropos to Ms Nova and her followers, hence my variation.

  91. #91 Earthling
    April 13, 2010

    I find this type of blog most amusing.
    Let’s compare Al Gore, the champion of AGW alarmism, to someone like Monckton, a champion of AGW scepticism, Monckton appears to be a brilliant scientist, which of course he isn’t.
    Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

  92. #92 SteveC
    April 13, 2010

    Lotharsson (89): Does “Jo Nova” count as a “real name”?

    Given everything I’ve read of hers seems to be recycled post-consumer waste (if not undiluted biosolids), my first thought was to wonder whether her moniker wasn’t her doing wry irony.

    My first thought lasted all of 10 milliseconds.

  93. #93 Fran Barlow
    April 13, 2010

    One should add, Alan, that there has always been a distinct market for science fantasy, potboiler conspiracy theories, and much else we Aussies would call shaggy dog stories. It helps a lot in the marketing that the particular shaggy dog story that Jo Nova and here ilk tell maps well to one side of the main political faultline separating left and right, and that the bulk of the really ignorant and socially marginalised in educated societies — i.e. those who feel most threatened by intellectual elites precisely because they remind them of their isolation — are from the same side of that faultline.

    But all the venting and yammering from the assembled cranks, morons, and sociopaths that are the target demographic for the filth merchant mouths for hire like Nova will make no difference. Only addressing the problems with policy will.

  94. #94 Stu
    April 13, 2010

    @ Earthing

    I know, I know! Cos he’s fat, right?

  95. #95 Fran Barlow
    April 13, 2010

    Earthling @91 tried:

    Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

    The alarmists mention Gore all the time. By contrast, those of us who accept the mainstream science aren’t much bothered with what he does popularising it and so see no need to comment.

  96. #96 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    I find this type of blog most amusing. Let’s compare Al Gore, the champion of AGW alarmism, to someone like Monckton, a champion of AGW scepticism

    You left out the thousands of climate scientists and other educated people who accept AGW, and their counterparts on the denialist side … oh, wait, there are no counterparts on the denialist side.

    Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

    It’s the denialists, like yourself, who constantly mention Al Gore.

  97. #97 Dave
    April 13, 2010

    I hope part 2 of the video mentions that Monckton is a massive NIMBY hypocrite, who championed mountaintop removal in West Virginia [while opposing development near to his house on environmental grounds](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/12/lord-monckton-environmentalist).

  98. #98 John
    April 13, 2010

    Monckton thinks that global warming is a communist plot to hand sovreignty of the US to the UN. Al Gore thinks man affects the climate, but with leadership we can do something about it.

    Now tell me who is the alarmist.

  99. #99 allen mcmahon
    April 13, 2010

    @ 85 rather unkind to lizards
    @ 86 perhaps the report of birds crashing into cliffs is a guilt by association issue rather than a result of GW
    @93

    It helps a lot in the marketing that the particular shaggy dog story that Jo Nova and here ilk tell maps well to one side of the main political faultline separating left and right, and that the bulk of the really ignorant and socially marginalised in educated societies — i.e. those who feel most threatened by intellectual elites precisely because they remind them of their isolation — are from the same side of that faultline.

    A gross simplification sharing common ground with how the extreme right views the left. Most of the truly ignorant and marginalised don’t give a toss one way or the other. It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both. It is also self defeating because if you actually believe the above is true then communication is impossible.

  100. #100 Stu
    April 13, 2010

    > It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both. It is also self defeating because if you actually believe the above is true then communication is impossible.

    Alas, when such ‘sceptics’ come over here for a chat they inevitably reveal themselves to be stupid, gullible or both (c.f. ‘empirical evidence’ thread, or any posts by our friend El Gordo). With that in mind, I’m almost forced to conclude that it’s actually not an assumption…