A Few Things Ill Considered

Many Matters Monckton

Some old news here and some new, all of it about my favorite climate contrarian, Lord Cristopher Monkton. He is my favorite because he is a clown and the more he is put forth as denialism’s “Septical Champion” the better.

First the old news. You may recall Tim Lambert debated Cristopher Monckton in Sydney a couple of months ago. Well that debate is up on YouTube in full. It is a 15 part playlist, but Tim tells us his presentation is part 3 and 4. I watched most of it and it is worth the time.

I think it is kind of amusing, and revealing, that Monkton claims some rather intimate knowledge of a Dr. Pinker, personal thoughts and philosophies, yet he is unaware even of her gender! (Can you say “bald faced liar?”) The brief version is Dr Pinker did a study on recent global brightening. Monkton claimed that “he” is a satellite nerd, completely uninterested in the IPCC etc and therefore not corrupted like the rest of “Big Science”. Monckton claimed “his” work showed that the IPCC’s CO2 sensitivity figures were wrong and that the IPCC ignored this inconvenient research for reasons of global conspiracy and world domination.

Enter Dr Pinker to set the record straight: “he” is a “she”, Monckton completely misunderstood her research, the IPCC did cite her work and they interpreted it correctly. Oops.

What are reader’s favorite parts of that debate?

The new news is that Monckton’s “expert” opinion was solicited by the idiot Republican’s for a recent hearing and Monckton still trotts out this fallacious argument. He has finally realized Dr Pinker is a woman, but calls her “Claire”, (her name is Rachel, nothing like preparing your material for the congressional record, eh?). Deltoid takes apart some of his testimony here.

Finally, Climate Crock of the Week has put out a couple of new videos specifically about Lord Monckton. As usual, they are entertaining and educational. They are presented below for your viewing pleasure:

Part 1

Part 2

Comments

  1. #1 Rich
    May 11, 2010

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyFeFhUTmI&feature=player_embedded

    Check out at 6:53 and 9:27.

    [snark] What an impressive argument. How do you counter such eloquence. [/snark]

  2. #2 crakar24
    May 11, 2010

    Coby,

    In my original post is stated “Now as far as i can tell the only way he could be wrong is if he has his calculations all screwed up, if not then he does raise some very good points. Feel free to examine the maths and point out any errors he may have made.”

    The response was the usual diatribe of insults, therefore one can only assume his math is correct. For if it was not then surely someone would have explained why it was incorrect.

    Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of the man if his math is correct then maybe we do have more than 50 days to save the planet or maybe we do not have to employ Bill Gates to make cloud making machines or spray the atmosphere with sulphur or any other hare brained mad scientist scheme.

    So maybe you can offer your opinion on the validity of his math.

    Crakar

  3. #3 crakar24
    May 11, 2010

    Coby,

    Whilst i await your checking of Monktons math i would like to raise an issue that i see becoming common place here that i feel needs to be nipped in the bud.

    I understand your hatred for want of better word towards Monkton and in fact anyone who disagrees with your belief in AGW (plimer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, M&M etc) but i am a little disappointed in your lack of hatred towards others who simply mouth the words that you like to hear.

    I will use Gore as an example here however this could be about any number of people.

    Gore continually lies when it comes to climate change one only needs to look at his fictional story in which he recieved an academy award. A semi recent event was when he appeared on US television as part of his recent book launch tour when he stated the temp below the Earths crust is several million degrees.

    Now we both know this is crap but yet you let it slide, i often wonder why you would do such a thing. The way i see it bullshit is bullshit but yet you seem to accept some bullshit if it is for the right cause.

    I am sure you have so much faith in your convictions that you have altered your life style somewhat (regardless of your holiday to Fiji) to the point where you are happy with your CO2 foot print etc. Does it not trouble you that a man who claims to be saving the planet reaps the rewards in both the film and book industry, travels the world producing more CO2 than you or i would in one hundred life times in order to profit from the very thing he campaigns against?

    Tell me, how much money has Monkton made from film and book releases, how much money has Monkton made from speaking appearances all in regards to AGW?

    To be honest i am a little disappointed in your pandering to the likes of Gore simply because he tells you what you want to hear and yet you show your distaste for the likes of Monkton simply because they dont.

    Do you believe your cause so righteous that it is acceptable for Gore to buy 8.8 mill dollar mansions whilst he tells the rest to live like hermits huddled around an eco friendly heater in the middle of winter.

    Do you believe your cause to be so valiant that it is acceptable for the likes of Gore to travel to the worlds most exotic locales to talk about a subject he knows so little about whilst you bump into furniture in the middle of the night because you were forced to used those pathetic light bulbs which will magically reduce our CO2 emmissions?

    Do you believe your cause to be so urgent that it is acceptable for him to live high on the hog in his mansions due to the generation of untold wealth from carbon trading whilst you because of the very tax that has enriched him are forced to live on rice and beans in a cold dark shack?

    Your lack of balance on this issue truly disappoints me.

  4. #4 PaulinMI
    May 12, 2010

    “I am sure you have so much faith in your convictions that you have altered your life style somewhat (regardless of your holiday to Fiji) to the point where you are happy with your CO2 foot print etc. Does it not trouble you that a man who claims to be saving the planet reaps the rewards in both the film and book industry, travels the world producing more CO2 than you or i would in one hundred life times in order to profit from the very thing he campaigns against?”

    And then camps out on the beach?

    Really though, if this is urgent, can we possibly justify the CO2 output required to produce “Dancing With the Stars” even one more week?

    [See Crakar, I think life without CO2 (is that possible?)(ok, then, with less CO2) could have some pleasant side effects after all!]

  5. #5 MarkusR
    May 12, 2010

    “They call me Stacy, they call me…Claire? That’s not my name, that’s not my…name.”

    Now I got that song stuck in my head.

  6. #6 JMurphy
    May 12, 2010

    crakar24 wrote : “I understand your hatred for want of better word towards Monkton and in fact anyone who disagrees with your belief in AGW (plimer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, M&M etc) but i am a little disappointed in your lack of hatred towards others who simply mouth the words that you like to hear.”

    Who needs to believe in AGW when all you have to do is accept the science and the opinions of the majority of scientists ? If you want to know about belief, you should ask those you name-checked, because they don’t believe in the science, even though they can’t disprove it. And, to be frank, Spencer and Christy would know all about belief, believing as they do in an almighty being who created all life on earth. Perhaps they also believe that global warming is god’s breath ?
    And how can anyone hate jokers like Monckton or Plimer ? They provide great laughs. They make me cringe but I don’t know anyone who actually hates them. Not the way the so-called skeptics hate Gore and obsess about him. Do you know who I mean ?

  7. #7 crakar24
    May 12, 2010

    Why stop there Paul? I would like to see (insert your country of origin here) Idol canned aswell.

    JMurphy,

    Thanks for hammering home the point i was making, fancy scientists believing in a God, how dare they. This misguided belief in a deity obviously means they are stupid deniers.

    Anyway as i said Gore was just one example we have of course Kofi Annan the old boss of the UN, you all remember him dont you? The one who presided over the “oil for food” scam. Lets not forget the $500,000 prize he won for the Zayed International Prize for the environment. One of the judges on the panel was a bloke named Steiner, 3 months later Steiner gets the plumb job of UNEP boss.

    Kofi of course promised to return the money to show there was no conflict of interest but as yet i still think he has it.

    Then of course we have the little problem of his son importing a Mercedes under UN auspices, it got a little tricky for Kofi when he promoted Abdoulie Janneh soon after, the problem here is it was Abdoulie Janneh’s testimony that got Kofi off the hook for the charge of abusing UN privilege.

    Whats UN short hand for conflict of interest? Cofi of course, coincedence or is all this merely a coincedence?

    Lets move on to the romance novelist. Whilst he is not busy eating at a cracked crab buffet in some exotic locale representing the UNIPCC he heads up a company called TERI. TERI of course is a subsidiary of Tata Energy Research Institute. TERI joins other subsidiary companies which deal in the automotive industry (no not eco friendly ones), cement manufacture, oil and gas connections and mining to name but a few. All of which rely heavily on CO2 emitting base load power.

    All these companies are based in India or somewhere else in Asia, so it comes as no surprise that the romance novelist vehemently argued that as India and other Asian countries are still developing they should be exempt from any requirements to reduce their CO2 emissions. Or is this just another coincedence?

    Of course i have only just scratched the surface and there are many more fat cats that have made a killing off the back of global warming and yet they do not appear on Coby’s blog. So i asked the question, how can you have such strong convictions and yet turn a blind eye to the obvious conflict of interest that operates right in front of you?

    Its not enough Murph to simply rehash that old chestnut about stupid deniers, none of the deniers mentioned above have gained in personal wealth from their position but it seems OK for the ones that you agree with to do so. Are you that gullible?

  8. #8 jcrabb
    May 13, 2010

    crakar24, Monkton got paid $100000 for his 2 week comedy act in Australia.

  9. #9 PaulinMI
    May 13, 2010

    Why stop there Paul? I would like to see (insert your country of origin here) Idol canned as well.

    I fail to see your point. This was a “lighthearted” comment. Sorry if it offended.

  10. #10 Dylan
    May 13, 2010

    crakar is cracking again.

    He/she missed the debunking of Monckton’s math. Can’t be bothered rehashing it for someone with such an enormous blind spot.

  11. #11 crakar24
    May 13, 2010

    One hundred grand? Dont suppose you could verify this jcrabb

    No offense Paul, mine was “lighthearted” as well

    I am a “He”, strangely you cant be bothered providing a link to show the erroneous math but you can be bothered to tell me it is no good. Keep the faith Dylan.

  12. #12 Turboblocke
    May 14, 2010

    TVMOB made some complaints about the Guardian…
    http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjQwMg

    The Guardian won.

  13. #13 JMurphy
    May 14, 2010

    crakar24 wrote : “Thanks for hammering home the point i was making, fancy scientists believing in a God, how dare they. This misguided belief in a deity obviously means they are stupid deniers.”

    I had nothing to state about their beliefs apart from the fact that they DO believe in stuff (e.g. god), whereas those who accept AGW don’t believe – they accept.
    Whether those scientists who believe in a god and don’t believe in AGW are stupid or not, I will leave others to decide.

    And you seem very obsessed with Gore and Pachauri. And Kofi Annan. What about the science ? Doesn’t that matter to you ? Do you prefer the personalities ?

    Finally, how much do you think Monckton, Plimer, etc. make from book sales ? Nothing ? Do you really believe that none of them have gained in personal wealth ? Surely not.

  14. #14 crakar24
    May 16, 2010

    And you seem very obsessed with Gore and Pachauri. And Kofi Annan. What about the science ? Doesn’t that matter to you ? Do you prefer the personalities ?

    Have a look at Coby’s latest thread about Soon, i think that answers your question.

    I was refering to Monkton and money (thats because Monkton’s name is mentioned in the title of the thread and no one elses) please try and stay on topic.

  15. #15 JMurphy
    May 17, 2010

    crakar24 wrote : “Have a look at Coby’s latest thread about Soon, i think that answers your question.”

    Which particular question ? You refer to a thread on Soon (who is, I believe, a scientist who publishes papers on what he believes are the solar causes of global warming) as a justification for your obsession with personalities like Gore, Pachauri and Annan ?

    What about the question as to how much people like Plimer make on book sales, or the wealthy Monckton makes on giving speeches ? Do you think they don’t benefit financially ?

    PS The name is MONCKTON.

  16. #16 crakar
    May 17, 2010

    Obsessed? No not at all, just trying to highlight the hypocrisy that is on display. The people you mention in 13 are no more qualified on the subject of climate than Monckton (better), they have a lot to say most of it crap and yet they get a free ride. Why do they get a free ride Murphy?

    Plimer is at least trained in a related science regardless if you think he is wrong.

    However there is only one person we have mentioned that has positioned himself to gain financially from the result of his very own actions, where i come from this is called conflict of interest.

  17. #17 skip
    February 1, 2011

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myths-one-stop-shop-Monckton-misinformation.html

    When looking at Adelady’s link to Skeptical Science I caught this.

Current ye@r *