The Church of Monckton

Barry Bickmore is compiling a list of the politicians, journalists etc who have damaged their credibility by relying on Christopher Monckton as a source of infomration about climate science.

Also well worth a look is Alden Griffith’s lucid explanation of what is wrong with Monckton’s claim that “Arctic sea ice is just fine”.

Comments

  1. #1 Marion Delgado
    August 26, 2010

    Asphalt roads, in particular, are melting all over russia – and the former czechoslovakia – as we read these screeds.

  2. #2 Roger Romney-Hughes
    August 28, 2010

    The cult of Monckton is explained by Douglas Adams and the Friends of Gin & Tonic!

  3. #3 Brent
    August 28, 2010

    Stu (#76):

    You asked: “Can you demonstrate that you do, Brent?”

    Sorry, Stu, the wicked Censor has excised the posting you refer to.

    I think future historians will have such a blizzard of data from the 21st century that this chatroom will be of no interest. But just on the off-chance that they try to understand how the mass hysteria and delusion of the Great Global Warming Myth came about, and then was challenged, and then collapsed, and they obtain a copy of this chatroom, the Censor’s ruthless deletions will make their work harder.

    This Lambert blokie did us the great service of setting up these chatrooms, and as long as he remained an impartial facilitator he deserved our respect. But he is now attempting to channel the debate according to his views, declaring people persona non grata, censoring the debate; he is overstepping the mark.

    Timmy baby, if you want to be a player rather than facilitator, how about putting your cards on the table and telling the people your stance on Global Warming?

  4. #4 Wow
    August 28, 2010

    Brent, write on your own thread. Then that nasty ickle censor won’t be mean to you.

  5. #5 Brent
    August 28, 2010

    I invite comments on the following reflection (rude boys please stay away):

    Whilst “science” might be described as an interlocking network of laws describing cause and effect independent of the place and time of the observer, some “scientists” are increasingly abusing the position of respect earned by their predecessors and bringing the wider profession into disrepute. The former is a progressive process, a pathway to truth. The latter are fallible human beings, currently enjoying the respect of the public as priests did in past centuries.

    News items beginning with the two most dangerous words in the language – “scientists say”, are to be treated with great scepticism. Western political leaders can hardly be criticised for following the advice of their Chief Scientific Advisors, who tell them that CO2 emissions must be halved in order to prevent a climate disaster, and that the dismantling of these nations’ manufacturing bases is a bitter pill worth swallowing.

    Meanwhile, the rising giants of China and India continue their dash for industrialisation, quietly ignoring the AGW scare story and quietly relishing the West’s masochistic hobbling of its own manufacturing base.

    The fault lies with politically motivated scientists who have stepped out of their traditional boundaries and into the realm of advocacy. The Chief Scientists doing such disservice to their political masters sit atop a pyramid of their profession, and without pressure from below to retract the apocalyptic predictions will continue to mis-advise governments.

    This is perhaps why I try to debate with footsoldier scientists in this chatroom. Their irrational apocalypticism is putting our future prosperity in peril, to the benefit of China whose rise is not hampered by democracy.

    The AGW myth risks impoverishing the western democracies; the scientific community must understand how they are betraying the confidence of the societies which feed them. I am fairly confident that public opinion will within a decade demolish the AGW story, scorning and deriding the entire profession as we observe that the end is not nigh.

    But, preferably, and sooner, young footsoldier scientists will “do an Ataturk” – drive the doommongering sultans from power and save the good name of the scientific profession.

  6. #6 chek
    August 28, 2010

    You probably actually truly believe that you’ve come to that considered and deliberated position all by yourself don’t you Brent?

    But really you’re just too dumb to realise you’re spouting a nonsense narrative that’s been fed to you, like all the other corn-fed, Koch-swallowing dupes who similarly believe exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.

  7. #7 Wow
    August 28, 2010

    Brent seems to have delusions of adequacy. This ain’t your thread, Brent. This ain’t your site.

    You ain’t got no power to say what others may or may not do here.

    Just because you have a horde who yell the same as you doesn’t make you anything more than inadequate.

  8. #8 Brent
    August 28, 2010

    Stu (#76):

    You asked: “Can you demonstrate that you do, Brent?”

    Sorry, Stu, the wicked Censor has excised the posting you refer to.

    I think future historians will have such a blizzard of data from the 21st century that this chatroom will be of no interest. But just on the off-chance that they try to understand how the mass hysteria and delusion of the Great Global Warming Myth came about, and then was challenged, and then collapsed, and they obtain a copy of this chatroom, the Censor’s ruthless deletions will make their work harder.

    This Lambert blokie did us the great service of setting up these chatrooms, and as long as he remained an impartial facilitator he deserved our respect. But he is now attempting to channel the debate according to his views, declaring people persona non grata, censoring the debate; he is overstepping the mark.

    Timmy baby, if you want to be a player rather than facilitator, how about putting your cards on the table and telling the people your stance on Global Warming?

    I invite comments on the following reflection (rude boys please stay away):

    Whilst “science” might be described as an interlocking network of laws describing cause and effect independent of the place and time of the observer, some “scientists” are increasingly abusing the position of respect earned by their predecessors and bringing the wider profession into disrepute. The former is a progressive process, a pathway to truth. The latter are fallible human beings, currently enjoying the respect of the public as priests did in past centuries.

    News items beginning with the two most dangerous words in the language – “scientists say”, are to be treated with great scepticism. Western political leaders can hardly be criticised for following the advice of their Chief Scientific Advisors, who tell them that CO2 emissions must be halved in order to prevent a climate disaster, and that the dismantling of these nations’ manufacturing bases is a bitter pill worth swallowing.

    Meanwhile, the rising giants of China and India continue their dash for industrialisation, quietly ignoring the AGW scare story and quietly relishing the West’s masochistic hobbling of its own manufacturing base.

    The fault lies with politically motivated scientists who have stepped out of their traditional boundaries and into the realm of advocacy. The Chief Scientists doing such disservice to their political masters sit atop a pyramid of their profession, and without pressure from below to retract the apocalyptic predictions will continue to mis-advise governments.

    This is perhaps why I try to debate with footsoldier scientists in this chatroom. Their irrational apocalypticism is putting our future prosperity in peril, to the benefit of China whose rise is not hampered by democracy.

    The AGW myth risks impoverishing the western democracies; the scientific community must understand how they are betraying the confidence of the societies which feed them. I am fairly confident that public opinion will within a decade demolish the AGW story, scorning and deriding the entire profession as we observe that the end is not nigh.

    But, preferably, and sooner, young footsoldier scientists will “do an Ataturk” – drive the doommongering sultans from power and save the good name of the scientific profession.

  9. #9 frank
    August 28, 2010

    Shorter Brent:

    I ignore all the scientific literature in the world and pull out Scientific Truths? from my backside! This is OK, because I have this conspiracy theory saying that all climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy! Therefore, my grand proclamations as wiped from my butt are just like the great teachings of Galileo himself!

    Also, I piss all over your blog without regard for rules or decorum. This, too, is what Galileo himself would have done!

  10. #10 chek
    August 28, 2010

    Frank, actually I think raising Galileo isn’t that far off the mark.

    I’m of the opinion that what we are seeing in the Moranoed and Montfordised footsoldiers as well exemplified by the blank-eyed cretinosity of Brent here is the modern day corporate equivalent of what the Catholic church tried to do in the 17th century.

    Taking on science didn’t end well for them then, and similarly it won’t end well for the modern day version.

  11. #11 Wow
    August 28, 2010

    Shorter Brent:

    Look at me!!!!

  12. #12 Brent
    August 28, 2010

    Frank,

    Can you see how foolish you look when complaining about ‘decorum’ whilst using pottymouthspeak?

    It’s pretty chilly here in England. I said to a bloke down the pub that my wife had put the central heating on. His wife too! In August! Brrrr. No melting roads just yet…

  13. #13 Brent
    August 28, 2010

    Guys, this cartoon on Bishop Hill makes my point about climatography’s wayward ways more succinctly than I managed:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/chasm2.jpg

  14. #14 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    Stu (#76):

    You asked: “Can you demonstrate that you do, Brent?”

    Sorry, Stu, the wicked Censor has excised the posting you refer to.

    I think future historians will have such a blizzard of data from the 21st century that this chatroom will be of no interest. But just on the off-chance that they try to understand how the mass hysteria and delusion of the Great Global Warming Myth came about, and then was challenged, and then collapsed, and they obtain a copy of this chatroom, the Censor’s ruthless deletions will make their work harder.

    This Lambert blokie did us the great service of setting up these chatrooms, and as long as he remained an impartial facilitator he deserved our respect. But he is now attempting to channel the debate according to his views, declaring people persona non grata, censoring the debate; he is overstepping the mark.

    Timmy baby, if you want to be a player rather than facilitator, how about putting your cards on the table and telling the people your stance on Global Warming?

  15. #15 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    I invite comments on the following reflection (rude boys please stay away):

    Whilst “science” might be described as an interlocking network of laws describing cause and effect independent of the place and time of the observer, some “scientists” are increasingly abusing the position of respect earned by their predecessors and bringing the wider profession into disrepute. The former is a progressive process, a pathway to truth. The latter are fallible human beings, currently enjoying the respect of the public as priests did in past centuries.

    News items beginning with the two most dangerous words in the language – “scientists say”, are to be treated with great scepticism. Western political leaders can hardly be criticised for following the advice of their Chief Scientific Advisors, who tell them that CO2 emissions must be halved in order to prevent a climate disaster, and that the dismantling of these nations’ manufacturing bases is a bitter pill worth swallowing.

    Meanwhile, the rising giants of China and India continue their dash for industrialisation, quietly ignoring the AGW scare story and quietly relishing the West’s masochistic hobbling of its own manufacturing base.

    The fault lies with politically motivated scientists who have stepped out of their traditional boundaries and into the realm of advocacy. The Chief Scientists doing such disservice to their political masters sit atop a pyramid of their profession, and without pressure from below to retract the apocalyptic predictions will continue to mis-advise governments.

    This is perhaps why I try to debate with footsoldier scientists in this chatroom. Their irrational apocalypticism is putting our future prosperity in peril, to the benefit of China whose rise is not hampered by democracy.

    The AGW myth risks impoverishing the western democracies; the scientific community must understand how they are betraying the confidence of the societies which feed them. I am fairly confident that public opinion will within a decade demolish the AGW story, scorning and deriding the entire profession as we observe that the end is not nigh.

    But, preferably, and sooner, young footsoldier scientists will “do an Ataturk” – drive the doommongering sultans from power and save the good name of the scientific profession.

    [Stop Press: The following cartoon says all the above with much greater economy! http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/chasm2.jpg ]

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2010

    > I invite comments on the following reflection…

    When you reflect something of actual value – for which a necessary but not sufficient condition is that it be far less full of false assumptions, faith-based positions, glittering generalities, outright lies and unsupported bogosity – then I might consider commenting.

    But I doubt you can produce anything along those lines.

  17. #17 Wow
    August 29, 2010

    Go and invite on your own thread, Brent.

  18. #18 adelady
    August 29, 2010

    Brent, it’s OK, I can’t possibly be a rude boy ços I’m a girl.

    China, the rising industrial giant, is installing more and more non-fossil-fuelled power generation faster than anywhere else in the world.

    Apocalyptic predictions. For all of the signifcant projections in the IPCC reports (I presume that’s what you’re referring to), a great number are being found – by empirical observations, see glaciers, Arctic ice, ocean acidification …. etc – to be understated or overlooked. Far from overstating the case, many of these seriously understate it.

    Impoverishing Western democracies? Only if they’re too silly, stubborn, blinkered or downright stupid to see the great financial and technical opportunities staring them in the face. There are ways to make money other than the way we’ve always made money. There is no “hole” in the economy left by the absence of the makers of buggy-whips or valve radios or videotapes or scrubbing boards or whalebone corsets or gasometers. The skill and energy people put in to technical or financial activities can readily be devoted to other rewarding businesses.

  19. #19 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    Lotharsson, good to see you again!

    Looking back at the “Empirical Evidence ” thread before the Wicked Censor concluded that it was making progress, and therefore to be terminated, we achieved some useful progress together.

    Despite the appalling ad hominem attacks from people like you, we managed to get somewhere together; we managed to focus the debate on two key areas which will either confirm or refute the Global Warming Theory. To have identified the key battlrgrounds in this way was very useful.

    The entire debate hinges on (i)Feedback and (ii)Sensitivity. (Meanwhile the planet will do what it does regardless of the hubristic words – including feedback and sensitivity – of puny Man!)

    If I may state the Feedback Question: “Is the Earth’s climate subject to positive or negative feedback? In the event of, say, a rise in global temperature, are there natural mechanisms which will damp and reverse a rising trend (negative fb) or do temperature rises lead to further such rises beyond a tipping point (positive).”

    If I may state the Sensitivity Question: “Of the various influences known to affect the Earth’s temperature (“drivers”), what is the relative sensitivity of the climate to each of those drivers and to what extent are we certain of our understanding of such contribution? In particular, the relative sensitivity of CO2 and solar/volcanic is critical. If CO2 dwarfs solar and volcanic, man’s carbon footprint is of critical importance; however if it is trivial in comparison then the current concern over CO2 is to be dismissed as a scare story.”

    I hope this helps.

    [Note to Tim Lambert: I understand your desire to delete my every contribution to this debate, but can't you cut me a little slack here rather than censoring me? I suppose I could return under a pseudonym, but the ideas we are debating here would make such an exercise transparent. Please stop censoring me. If you can't, at least suggest to me a more appropriate outlet for my ideas. Such outlets cannot be predominantly among likeminded people: I need to test them against antagonists like Lotharsson: a rich resource of irrational apocalypticism.]

  20. #20 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    *[Could I remind everyone to not respond to Brent unless he posts in his own thread? Tim]*

  21. #21 chek
    August 29, 2010

    Now pushing your latest corn-fed denialist fantasy that climate science isn’t real science, eh Brent?
    That’s precisely why you and your cretinous second-hand ‘ideas’ such as ‘puny man’ are confined to your own special needs thread.

    Where’s Truth Machine when his efficiency is needed?
    He has just the word for you, and those like you.

  22. #22 chek
    August 29, 2010

    [Adelady said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_church_of_monckton.php#comment-2759742) “Brent, it’s OK, I can’t possibly be a rude boy ços I’m a girl”.

    What you’ll find Adelady is that Brent earnestly undertakes to read this and read up on that and does nothing of the sort.

    ‘Know nothing’ Brent studiously avoids anything that may inform him or conflict with his fervently held cuckoo beliefs. But he likes trying to make people jump through his hoops for a laugh. He acquired the nickname ‘goldfish troll’, a measure of how short a period of time passed for him to start reiterating his original denialist menu, yet again.

    ‘Know nothing’ Brent, despite his poor imitation of being Mr.-oh-so-reasonable, is here to teach us the errors of our ways, yet again and on and on, which is why he’s confined to his own padded thread.

  23. #23 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    Lotharsson, good to see you again!

    Looking back at the “Empirical Evidence ” thread before the Wicked Censor concluded that it was making progress, and therefore to be terminated, we achieved some useful progress together.

    Despite the appalling ad hominem attacks from people like you, we managed to get somewhere together; we managed to focus the debate on two key areas which will either confirm or refute the Global Warming Theory. To have identified the key battlegrounds in this way was very useful.

    The entire debate hinges on (i)Feedback and (ii)Sensitivity. (Meanwhile the planet will do what it does regardless of the hubristic words – including feedback and sensitivity – of puny Man.)

    If I may state the Feedback Question: “Is the Earth’s climate subject to positive or negative feedback? In the event of, say, a rise in global temperature, are there natural mechanisms which will damp and reverse a rising trend (negative fb) or do temperature rises lead to further such rises beyond a tipping point (positive).”

    If I may state the Sensitivity Question: “Of the various influences known to affect the Earth’s temperature (“drivers”), what is the relative sensitivity of the climate to each of those drivers and to what extent are we certain of our understanding of such contribution? In particular, the relative sensitivity of CO2 and solar/volcanic is critical. If CO2 dwarfs solar and volcanic, man’s carbon footprint is of critical importance; however if it is trivial in comparison then the current concern over CO2 is to be dismissed as a scare story.”

    I hope this helps.

    [Note to Tim Lambert: I understand your desire to delete my every contribution to this debate, but can't you cut me a little slack here rather than censoring me? I suppose I could return under a pseudonym, but the vivid ideas we are debating here would make such an exercise transparent. Please stop censoring me. If you can't, at least suggest to me a more appropriate outlet for my ideas. Such outlets cannot be predominantly among likeminded people: I need to test them against antagonists like Lotharsson: a rich resource of irrational apocalypticism.]

  24. #24 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    I just tried sitting in the garden to read the paper.

    Even in a wooly pully it’s too chilly. In August. Outrageous! Where’s all this Global Warming the fanatics are waffling on about?

  25. #25 adelady
    August 29, 2010

    I know, chek, I know.

    I can usually resist when the topic is the science because I have no expertise there, but the balderdash, rot and witlessness of the we’ll-all-be-rooned economic argument gets to me. I just can’t let it pass. In like the tide, every time.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2010

    > Looking back at the “Empirical Evidence ” thread before the Wicked Censor concluded that it was making progress, and therefore to be terminated,…

    Wrong. That thread is still going, although it is a vivid monument to your own inability to make progress even when spoon-fed the basics.

    > Despite the appalling ad hominem attacks from people like you,…

    Rewriting history too, I see.

    > Where’s all this Global Warming the fanatics are waffling on about?

    The goldfish returns to conflating regional weather with global climate. Surprise, surprise.

  27. #27 Brent
    August 29, 2010

    Adelady (102):

    (i) Yes, China is burning ever-more fossil fuel. If carbon causes global warming as claimed, the efforts of Britain (or more so of ‘little’ Australia) to save the world will be for naught. Britain’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers produced a scenario in which we meet the absurd 80% reduction target: the industrial consequences were orders of magnitude greater than we can ever afford. So we won’t.

    (ii) Yes, the IPCC forecasts melting polecaps and rising seas and so much more. Meanwhile, nothing actually happens. The general public, yawning at the whole hoo-hah, can’t see what all the fuss is about. Increasingly, if you tell your new neighbour “hello, my name’s so-and-so and my carbon footprint is half the national average”, said neighbour will shuffle sideways hoping to make a polite getaway. This is territory one occupied by those who say, “Hello, new neighbour, have you thought about letting Jesus into your life?”

    (iii) Your point about the replacement of obsolete industries – like sealing wax – is well made. But the claimed economic benefits of green industry are illusory: only with vast subsidy (a burden borne by genuine wealth producers through increased taxes) are they viable. Maybe you’re thinking about financial services based on carbon accounting. Never in the field of human business was so much paid by so many to so few besuited parasites in the City of London trading hot air. They luv it! Not surprising: it’s legal extortion sanctioned by governments.

    Replace valve radio manufacture with MP3 players – most certainly! Replace it with green bling such as solar panels or windmills – no. Because the financial and energy budgets are negative. (The one exception being solar hot water.)

  28. #28 chek
    August 29, 2010

    Would you care to cite your claim, Brent?
    ” Britain’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers produced a scenario in which we meet the absurd 80% reduction target: the industrial consequences were orders of magnitude greater than we can ever afford. So we won’t.

    The IME’s website doesn’t appear to share your contextless story of doom.
    [The Institution of Mechanical Engineers](http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/)

    Or is the “Institute” of Mechanical Engineers some Moncktonesque front group pretending to be the 160 year old organisation?

    I have to ask because you really can’t trust you denialists as far as you could throw them.

  29. #29 Brent
    August 30, 2010

    *[Dear readers, please do not respond to Brent if he posts off his own thread.]*

Current ye@r *