Peter Sinclair’s latest video continues on with Christopher Monckton. I’m in this one!
Even better than part 1. And I liked your cameo appearance Tim.
These should be compulsory viewing over at AgMates 😀
Great! I’m glad someone has dug up Thatcher’s words on global warming as, love her or hate her, that she said those things is a bit of an inconvenient truth for Monckton et al. I wonder why nobody has challenged him before in his public addresses about a) Thatcher and b) the meme that he was a science adviser to her.
BTW Tim, having watched your debate with Monckton and having now seen two episodes of the new Doctor Who series (heh, heh my fellow Australians you just have to wait to this Sunday night for the first one) then Tim, why didn’t the BBC cast you as the new Doctor instead of Matt Smith. You would’ve been a shoo in…….!
I think ‘Thatcherites’ claim she did the ‘global warming’ thing as a part of the plan to ‘take out’ the UK coal miners.
Although I’m not sure of the sequence of events, speeches then close coal mines, or close coal mines then speeches?
Well done Tim, you are now even more famous
And, yes yet another excellent take down by Peter Sinclair. I thought this series was too silly at first, but then I had to remind myself who it was about!
If I remember correctly the miners strike was in 1984, mines closed in the years after that and Thatcher made her speeches on global warming toward the end of the eighties. Pretty smart move huh, doing it all back-to-front.
Phew, what a looney!
the videos are getting better and better.
isn t there some price that can be awarded to Sinclair? anyone got an idea?
that Thatcher stuff at the end was simply brilliant.
The Monckton comparison is the worst sort of insult to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Peter.
Monckton wasn’t a science adviser to Thatcher but he was an political/ economic adviser to her.
I have always the impression that Thatcher’s concern about climate change was sincere. Even evil right wingers can care about their grandchildren?
I was pretty young then but to my knowledge she did not use the climate issue in the minor’s strike at all. Incidentally neither do I remember it being discussed when the John Major government shut many of the remaining coal mines in the early nineties. The argument given was that they were uncompetitive.
Speaking as someone who was in the UK in 84-5 and actively supported the miners, I can’t imagine why Thatcher wouldn’t have mentioned AGW as a wedge.
Seeing the logos together reminds me:
there is a small circle of those
or had resignations demanded by
the Visocunt, possibly with help from Robert Ferguson or K-M Schulte, etc.
As far as I know, the latest joiner of this circle is Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young U, as described by Eli Rabett in Monckton Jumps the Land-Shark, gets Eaten, although possible the Salt Lake Tribune joined later.
I suspect Peter Sinclair will have this chance… perhaps for “unlawful interference with the YouTube-sphere.”
This group deserves a logo and name of its own! Perhaps a purple portcullis with a red circle/slash on it? Or a dragon rampant on a field of broken portcullis pieces? There is room for creativity from those with good graphics skills.
In addition, there might be a derivative logo that could be displayed with any Monckton-debunking article, making it immediately visible, and giving the displayers thereof a boost towards membership in the circle above.
Ouch. That video of Thatcher is going to hurt some of the sceptics who see her as a conservative hero.
But will they re-assess their scepticism by taking a closer look at the actual science? Not a chance. The shutters are slammed firmly closed.
I am surprised that people seem to have forgotten that Thatcher new about global warming and was concerned about it (love her or hate her). She trained in science under a nobel prize winner, Dorothy Hodgkin.
Thats why I always laugh when Monckton praises her so fulsomely. I guess thats because he thinks most people have forgotten what Thatcher said on this and that she was a scientist which is why he never seems to correct people when being introduced as a ‘former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher’. Can you imagine him trying to advise her on science.
Another good take down of Monckton. But why continue to refer to him as “Lord Monckton” in the video, especially after knowing that he has been mis-representing himself? He is a Lord of nothing.
He is Lord of Factual Inaccuracy and Dishonesty.
In other words, Lord of Pants On Fire.
Slightly off-topic, but Tim (and others) might be interested to know that there was a climate change “debate” at James Cook University just last week between David Karoly (University of Melbourne) and Peter Ridd (JCU). Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend and don’t know if it was recorded.
Actually, he is entitled be called Lord, but not to represent himself as a Member of the House of Lords. See Peerage section.
Re #18: So can we say that the Potty Peer is, in a manner of speaking, a member of the Outhouse of Lords? I’m thinking that portcullis would be improved by the addition of a crescent moon.
That’s a splendidly-composed video – full marks to Peter!
It’d be great to have the lot on a DVD (hint!)…
The Thatcher clips towards the end are a masterstroke. The notion of AGW being a way to get at the miners is a weary old denialist myth – those clips all date from well after the miners’ strike.
As to the “Lord” bit, as Eli posted recently, enquiries made to the House of Lords brought the following succint reply:
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
CP @ 20,
just to clarify, you don’t have to be a member of the House of Lords to be entitled to call yourself a Lord. Monckton inherited his title and that’s all fine and dandy. What he didn’t inherit was a seat in the House of Lords.
Indeed, Stu – you are quite right: however, the point is that he should not introduce himself as being from the Upper House or the legislature, which he has done a number of times!
Monckton actually claims it was he who alerted Thatcher that “there might be a problem with CO2”. “But 3 years ago, when a finance house asked me to advise it on whether there was a problem, I looked at the science again, I found there was no problem”. Reported [here](http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-climate-pool/courting-controversy-qa-with-skeptic-christopher-monckton/228690794413). He is of course notorious for overstating his importance in the Thatcher administration.
I recall the miners strike and agree with everybody else that AGW was never raised as the justification for pit closures. The arguments were always economic.
Actually, he *is* a Lord. It’s just that he is not a member of the *House* of Lords. [Grandfather](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Monckton,_1st_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley). [Father](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Monckton,_2nd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley).
The British peerage system is outmoded tosh, so he’ll always be plain Mr. Christopher Monckton to me.
Monckton claims Obama was born in Kenya.
An amusing take-down of the clownish Monckton.
Spurred by your appearance there, Tim, I finally watched most of your debate with Monckton and while you did well, considering the host was carrying a brief for Monckton and most of the audience in his pocket, I think it shows why debates like that are a poor medium. Essentially, Monckton can bullshit faster than you can shovel it out of the way. You’re further prevented by the faux collegiality of the setting from really lighing into Monckton when he’s spouting stuff he’s clearly pulled out of his ass. Dr Pinker is an example, where Monckton has obviously simply made up out of whole cloth that business of ‘him’ being a satellite geek who only cares about ‘his’ little niche and so hasn’t bothered to look and see if ‘his’ work was misrepresented by the IPCC. Or there was the bit about trendlines and first year statistics Monckton was lecturing you about as if he’d even up to first year stats. In a forum like that debate, Monckton is free to talk about others lying or engaging in fraud and a hoax, but if you respond in the same terms you’re going to be the bad guy.
Comparing the freedom to BS that Monckton has in such a forum to the way similar BS of the creationist stripe was eviscerated in the Dover Panda Trial, I so much regret that there is unlikely to be a chance to have Monckton properly cross-examined in depth. It would be nice if at some point one of the scientists he accuses so freely of fraud would sue the bastard for defamation. Even with the recent Court of Appeal decision in the British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh (lots on this at Jack of Kent’s blog), I don’t see how Monckton could make out a defence of honest opinion when he makes such allegations and the chance of getting him deposed and cross-examined would be delicious. He seems sufficiently full of himself that he might be fool enough to try a defence of truth and I can see him coming out looking about like David Irving did when he sued Deborah Lippstadt and Penguin for saying he is a holocaust denier.
Being a lawyer by training, I may be prejudiced, but legal process has the advantage over both scientific publications and gentlemanly debates in being quite prepared to deal with people who are not being honest (whether with others or themselves) and who can’t be counted on to present a fair version of the facts. It’s disappointing and frustrating that the only process we have that really exposes folk like Monckton is so inaccessible, not so much in terms of money (though there too) as in terms of the circumstances that have to line up in order for it to be brought to bear.
John Mashey @ 12, that’s a brilliant typo! (I think he should always be addressed as Visocunt Monckton in future.)
Monckton is [interviewed in The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/27/ukip-science-policy-general-election) today in his role as a science spokesperson of the UK Independence Party. Inevitably global warming gets a mention, but so does alternative medicine, libel laws, drugs policy and public health.
Monkton says: ‘Ukip would appoint a Royal Commission on “global warming” science and economics, under a High Court judge, with advocates on either side of the case, to examine and cross-examine the science and economics of “global warming” with all the evidential rigour of a court of law.’
Then he says: ‘Ukip has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. There must be an immediate halt to needless expenditure on the basis of a now-disproven hypothesis.’
All the evidential rigour of a court of law… although his Lordship is special and allowed to pass judgment beforehand.
More than likely because Thatcher didn’t give a rat’s ass whether AGW was real or not. Just a convenient bargaining chip against the coal miners. Please do a little research next time. This subject has been well covered by so many. Hardly ground breaking stuff.
Just because Lord Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley worked for Thatcher doesn’t mean they agreed on everything scientific.
The Deltoid gang has been trying to bring down Monckton for years and he’s done nothing but become more popular during that time. Good work team! LOL
Its a shame Thatcher is effectively gaga these days and can’t answer your insinuations.
However your thesis has an important hole in it – there was an american report from 1979 that laid out what was expected from increasing CO2 levels, and it got things pretty much correct. So the science was well established even the year that Thatcher took office. Plus, like most deniers, you have no idea of the date – the Hadley centre was founded in 1990, 6 years after the miners strike was broken and coal production was in decline. So if it was such a useful weapon against the miners (I’ve read a bit about the strike and climate change isn’t mentioned) how come it took 6 years to set up the Hadley centre and make the speeches about global warming?
The answer is that she was interested in the science.
Can you tell us, so we know you have actually looked this up yourself rather than parroting it from denialist websites, when Maggie was interviewed talking about global warming expressing her concern and need for action? Can you tell us the year that the coal miner strikes ended?
Looking at the order of these two, care to tell us why you think your statement makes any kind of logical sense?
Thanks guthrie. I was trying to see if troll had bothered to look this up himself
Margaret Thatcher actually gave many speeches on global warming, but invariably these were during her third term, after the 1987 election, good examples of this are her [speech](http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346) to the Royal Society in 1988, and [that](http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237) to the 2nd World Climate Conference in 1990. You can find an archive of every speech she gave at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation page [here](http://www.margaretthatcher.org/).
The miners strikes and her effort to diminish the power of the unions were all pretty much invariable undertaken during her 2nd term in office, especially 1984-85. A cursory look at any UK history source, textbook, or even [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984%E2%80%931985%29) will show this.
So on the balance of probability it seems unlikely she was using her speeches (and insulting the Royal Society) for attacking the coal miners union, and much more liklely that, as a science graduate with a Chemistry major, she knew what she was talking about and could grasp the potential future importance of climate change.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.
Past time for more thread.