Hamster Wheel interviews Monckton

Here it is — the interview that Monckton declared showed that the ABC supported fascism.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    October 19, 2011

    Ooooh – much more fun than I’d anticipated (I was expecting more of that dreadful approach to Monckton where the norms-of-politeness constrained interviewer just gets overwhelmed by the unrelenting wave of bafflegab.)

    I think that in the future it will be seen as a defining feature of both the climate debate and the age itself that such a person can have had such a public career given the actual calibre of his material.

    And this is ‘supporting fascism’ how exactly?

    (Anyone recognise the latin?)

  2. #2 james
    October 19, 2011

    utterly brilliant, the only way the loony fringe should be dealt with.

  3. #3 Ender
    October 19, 2011

    Best interview ever. James is correct this is the only way to deal with people like Monkton and is far more effective than the sad mistake of debating them.

  4. #4 EoR
    October 19, 2011

    Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.

  5. #5 Billy Bob Hall
    October 19, 2011

    It’s not even funny Tim, Then again, I’m not up with you sophisticated city slickers am I.

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    October 19, 2011

    I said on the open thread that this reminded me of Borat interviewing one of his interviewees. I guess I can only dream that Borat actually does interview Monckton.

  7. #7 john byatt
    October 20, 2011

    Time for the little aussie bleeder to interview Monckton,

    where are you Norman?

  8. #8 chek
    October 20, 2011

    The one thing that self-important, self-appointed little men like Monckton cannot deal with is not being taken seriously and becoming targets of scorn and derision. Great approach to the interview.

  9. #9 PG
    October 20, 2011

    I actually felt sorry for the old coot. I think it went a little bit too far in terms of ridicule..and it perhaps echoes Mark Latham’s infamous handshake of John Howard.

    No-one likes to see old men getting beaten up..either literally or figuratively. It reminded me of the BBC documentary on him that screened earlier in the year..which created similar feelings in me.

    You don’t want to create sympathy for genuine lunatics like Monckton. Unlike Carter, Plimer etc..I think he genuinely believes in what he is peddling and he is incapable of facing reality.

  10. #10 chek
    October 20, 2011

    PG, it’s unwise to allow your sympathies to be manipulated by the likes of Monckton.

    Given free reign, that closet fascist would have isolated and imprisoned forever every HIV patient during the ’80′s panic, and deployed biological weapons during the Falklands war. Now he’s pimping for global interests at the expense of the common good for personal gain.

    He’s actually beneath contempt despite his apparently civilised public face.

  11. #11 Nick
    October 20, 2011

    PG,that old man is actually a thug.Have you read the transcripts of his talks?

  12. #12 JamesA
    October 20, 2011

    I much prefer Monckton being treated as the comedy sideshow that he is. If it means that serious scientists and policymakers have to spend less time countering his nonsense, I’m all for it.

    As for the man himself, I don’t possess so much as a gramme of sympathy. I sometimes wonder if he is suffering from some kind of delusion, but most of the time I’m of the opinion he’s just a conman who gets his jollies from acting important.

  13. #13 StevoR
    October 20, 2011

    @8. PG | October 20, 2011 4:13 AM :

    You don’t want to create sympathy for genuine lunatics like Monckton. Unlike Carter, Plimer etc..I think he genuinely believes in what he is peddling and he is incapable of facing reality.

    I dunno bout that.

    I’ve met Ian Plimer & he certainly seems very sincere and genuine in person. Plimer even had me convinced .. for a time & to my shame. :-(

    Monckton~wise, I think these youtube clips :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=35

    (Part I) &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=34

    (Part II)

    Plus this :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rizvaJyA-GM&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=4

    sum him up best.

    Despite his claims he’s no member of the House of Lords, no former science advisor to Maggie Thatcher and NOT somebody I’d feel any pity or respect for.

  14. #14 bill
    October 20, 2011

    PG, I can’t agree – anyone who can spout this kind of crap deserves everything he gets [Head-in-Vice warning!].

    What is there to respect and tiptoe around in this kind of poisonous nonsense?

    People hold ‘sincere beliefs’ in all sort of whacky – and, more importantly, deeply vile – crap. And amazingly some people even get funded to swan around the world spouting such toxic junk! (And as the man himself might say “cui bono?“)

    Just how intricate are the knots we need to tie ourselves in in so as not to offend anyone in the process of refuting them? Satiric scorn is an entirely appropriate reaction to ugly stupidity. If not the most appropriate reaction, as has been suggested above. Orwell? Swift?

  15. #15 StevoR
    October 20, 2011

    BTW. Off topic somewhat but there’s an interesting interview with Alan Jones – the Climate Contrarian not the F1 champion – here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHAWVZadrc

    via ABC TV’s 7.30 Report & slavman4000 on Youtube.

    20 minutes 25 seconds mark :

    “I don’t believe in it [Global Overheating -ed.], I think it’s like Halley’s comet.”

    Er .. what?! Alan Jones doesn’t believe in Halley’s Comet?! O-0

  16. #16 john byatt
    October 20, 2011

    Probably this stuff steve,

    The UnMuseum – Comet Halley
    http://www.unmuseum.org/halleycomet.htmIn 1665 a comet preceded an outbreak of the Black Plague that killed almost 100000 … The predicted return of Halley’s Comet became one of the first chances to

  17. #17 Amoeba
    October 20, 2011

    Every time I hear Monckton spout his crap, I feel the irresistible urge to vomit.

  18. #18 FrankD
    October 20, 2011

    The Latin tag just underscores what a genius Sacha Baron Cohen is:
    “…and so it’s not a not a question of being in the Lord Monckton character. As it happens I *am* Lord Monckton. As the poet Horace used to say “Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci”…

    The phrase means “he wins every hand who mixes profit with pleasure”. Of course, it has nothing at all to do with SBC’s assertion that has is “Lord Monckton”, but is total smoke and mirrors. A brilliantly subtle swipe at denialists who throw random non sequiturs to distract from the fact they have little but assertion and handwaving.

    Doubly clever, because of course, SBC’s “Monckton” character *has* taken great pleasure and made plenty of coin at the same time by baffling and upsetting pensioners, just as “Borat” did with monied but clueless Americans.

    Genius!

    (well, the Latin translation is accurate, anyway…)

  19. #19 Marco
    October 20, 2011

    Washington Post also picked up on this:
    http://tiny.cc/sasha-baron-cohen

  20. #20 Jeffrey Davis
    October 20, 2011

    Was Cohen in on the joke? Or more importantly, was Monckton in on the joke. (I’ve always suspected that most of Cohen’s foils were willingly part of the joke.)

  21. #21 chek
    October 20, 2011

    Uh no, Jeffrey – Cohen was likely thousands of miles away and totally unaware of this particular jape. And Monckton in on it? I doubt that.

    Monckton was getting flustered because he was being treated as if he were one of Cohen’s comedy characters. And not being taken seriously is complete anathema to the pompous.

  22. #22 ginckgo
    October 20, 2011

    StevoR @ 12: I have to disagree about Plimer’s sincerity. A colleague of mine, who knows him well, indicated that Plimer had straight out said that he wrote Heaven & Earth simply because he knew it would make him money, not because he cared about the science.

    Bob Carter, whom I know moderately well, is another story: he’s a good scientist, but can be a bit of a bully about convincing you about his own theories; plus I think his ideologies have trumped the science.

    Monckton is a lunatic in the literal sense. Funny thing is, I have asked several colleagues from the UK about him, and none of them has ever heard of him – he probably knows he’d get laughed out of the country if he pulled his crap in the UK because they aren’t fooled by his pomp. Whereas in the US and here in Oz….

  23. #23 ianam
    October 20, 2011

    @#8

    There is something deeply wrong with you if this made you feel sympathy for Monckton.

    beaten up..either literally or figuratively

    That’s pure unadulterated bullshit.

  24. #24 ianam
    October 20, 2011

    was Monckton in on the joke

    No, but he’s such an idiot that it sort of seems that way.

  25. #25 Jason
    October 20, 2011

    @SteveR For those old enough to remember, Alan Jones likely is referring to the 1986 pass of Halley’s comet near earth. It was hyped for months by the media (and some astronomers) as a spectacular once in a lifetime celestial light show that you wouldn’t need a telescope to observe, but in the end, turned out to be a fizzer, barely observable with binoculars even if you knew where to look.

    So, like, I think he’s implying that it’s overhyped (making him a lukewarmist.)

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    October 20, 2011

    I thought it revealing that the last paragraph in the [Washington Post piece](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/hamster_wheel_interviews_monck.php#comment-5586228) required an explanation of the joke…

    I’m enjoying the Hamster Wheel though. I did miss the latest episode, but from what I’ve seen the Chaser team appears to be pulling their comedy back toward more clever satirical stuff than the somewhat base material they ended with at the end of their War on Everything.

  27. #27 PG
    October 20, 2011

    I think you’ve mis-interpreted my point. I’m as well versed as anyone regarding the sorts of horrible lies, fear, uncertainty and doubt that he has spread across the world.

    However, people don’t like to see mentally frail old people being ridiculed. For those who ‘sit on the fence’ regarding AGW, I personally think that instead of pursuing Monckton..the best thing to do IMO is to ignore him.

    In other words, the Chaser skit isn’t going to make a genuine AGW skeptic suddenly understand and accept the science is it?

    Mind you..it was funny.

  28. #28 StevoR
    October 21, 2011

    @24 Jason | October 20, 2011 8:29 PM :

    @StevoR For those old enough to remember, Alan Jones likely is referring to the 1986 pass of Halley’s comet near earth. It was hyped for months by the media (and some astronomers) as a spectacular once in a lifetime celestial light show that you wouldn’t need a telescope to observe, but in the end, turned out to be a fizzer, ..

    Thanks. That make sense. Jones comment still sounds silly to me though.

    @21 ginckgo | October 20, 2011 6:04 PM :

    StevoR @ 12: I have to disagree about Plimer’s sincerity. A colleague of mine, who knows him well, indicated that Plimer had straight out said that he wrote Heaven & Earth simply because he knew it would make him money, not because he cared about the science.

    Fair enough.

    However, its not how he came across to me & I think (sadly) how he comes over to many others though.

    I suppose he wouldn’t be much of a successful contrarian “luminary” if he seemed insincere would he?

  29. #29 ianam
    October 21, 2011

    I think you’ve mis-interpreted my point.

    I don’t. Rather, you have moved the goalposts and then launched an attack on at least two strawmen.

    In other words, the Chaser skit isn’t going to make a genuine AGW skeptic suddenly understand and accept the science is it?

    You appear to be one of those people who use the phrase “in other words” as if you had no idea what it meant.

  30. #30 zoot
    October 21, 2011

    However, people don’t like to see mentally frail old people being ridiculed

    Speak for yourself. The evil little prick deserves all the ridicule we can muster. I have as much concern for his welfare as he has for the welfare of my great grandchildren.

  31. #31 MMM
    October 21, 2011

    On some blogs, I keep seeing this phrase thrown around: “From Laframboise’s Citizen Audit: “Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed.””

    I don’t like engaging in discussions on contrarian blogs because they just get annoying… but I feel like it would valuable for one of the good climate blogs to debunk this number. The quick answer is that Laframboise’s citizens misclassified two major classes of documents:

    First, many book chapters are indeed peer-reviewed, but the citizen auditors classified all book chapters as non peer-reviewed.

    Second, they may disagree with the outcomes of the review, but the IPCC, National Academies, and WMO reports are heavily reviewed, and they were also classified as not reviewed.

    At least looking at WGI chapters like chapter 2, something like 3/4s of the “non peer-reviewed” references fall into the above two categories, and several more refer to raw data sources which don’t require peer review. Not to mention that many of the references (even in WGII and WGIII) to non-peer reviewed documents are often using them as examples of government or industry responses to change, where such a reference is appropriate, rather than using the reference as a source of analysis and results…

  32. #32 Marco
    October 21, 2011

    MMM, I already have noted the same a number of times, amongst others here:
    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/04/cant-you-see-acceleration.html
    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-letter-by-scientists-on-ipcc.html

    Couldn’t even get it into Hans von Storch’s head that the “citizen auditors” were muddling the waters by conflating various issues.

    Someone might want to put this little factoid on Climate Etc, but it is likely to get ignored by the host there. She doesn’t like people pointing out she fell for yet another lie.

  33. #33 MartinM
    October 21, 2011

    Not to mention that many of the references (even in WGII and WGIII) to non-peer reviewed documents are often using them as examples of government or industry responses to change, where such a reference is appropriate, rather than using the reference as a source of analysis and results…

    To that I’d add that non-reviewed book chapters are generally fine as references if all you’re citing them for is basic knowledge in the relevant field.

  34. #34 Russell
    October 21, 2011

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode in which Marylebone president Christopher, Viscount Monckton, demand the ejection of Sascha, Baron Cohen, from the next test at Lords.

    Rhetorical force majure this viscount may have mastered, but vis consili expers mole ruit sua.

  35. #35 MMM
    October 21, 2011

    Hi Marco!

    I see you did make the same observation I did (but much earlier than I did)… again, I think it would be good for someone like the host of this blog to actually make this critique a short, top-level post that we can then point people like Judith Curry to… (because I still have a wisp of hope that Curry retains vestiges of real scientific thought and can sometimes be swayed by evidence, in contrast to, say, Plimer or Monckton or Watts).

  36. #36 Marco
    October 21, 2011

    MMM, I think others have noted it, too, and Phil Clarke already wrote something on Curry’s blog. Zip response from the host (last time I checked), others actively moving goalposts in all directions.

  37. #37 SteveC
    October 21, 2011

    Apologies for being O/T but re Laframboise, Curry has a post raving about how good the book is, and of course puts in a lot of references to an authority on the subject of the IPCC – herself.

    She also makes much of the glowing reviews the book got on Amazon, which as we all know is a rock-solid guide to how good a book is – it’s not as if anyone can just rock up and post their own review, is it… Anyway apparently Peter Gleick gave Laframboise’s book a good mauling at Amazon, which led to Curry stating Gleick hadn’t even read the book. Gleick quite rightly got on Curry’s blog and demanded she correct the “lie” and apologise. After a lot of to-and-fro Curry altered the wording, saying she always corrects errors in her posts, but when questioned by Gleick and others said she altered her wording because Gleick asked her to, not beause her original claim was erroneous.

    Honestly, Curry’s squirming on this makes me wonder if she hasn’t had training as a lawyer. Gleick remains – shall we say – unmoved.

  38. #38 Fran Barlow
    October 22, 2011

    Au contraire PG — I’m for badgering and annoying the hell out of the Monckton character. This is what a particularly nasty troll looks like in real life, and the fact that he was being trolled was absolutely called for, as well as amusing.

    There never was any possibility of getting him to admit sense. It was far better to treat him like the overhyped fraud he is.

  39. #39 WotWot
    October 22, 2011

    “bafflegab”

    Ha ha. My new nonsense word. Thank you.

    I have as much concern for his welfare as he has for the welfare of my great grandchildren.

    Nice line.

  40. #40 Donald Oats
    October 22, 2011

    Doubleplusgood smackdown.

    M got what he gives others, ie a serious dissing.

  41. #41 Scribe
    October 22, 2011

    Climate denier now backs global warming, see article in The Independent.

    “Urban heat island effect” consigned to the trash bin.

  42. #42 Wow
    October 24, 2011

    > “Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed.”

    Well, given that there is a section on how manganese ore is refined, please tell us where anywhere how the refining of manganese ore is peer reviewed, or any place such a thing could be done. Therefore “No peer review” would be a nonsequitor (especially since that section doesn’t appear in WG1).

    IIRC it also includes references to the earlier IPCC reports as “Not Peer Reviewed”, which is rather odd, since the IPCC is possibly the most peer reviewed document possible.