So the latest headline on Drudge is this:
Which sounds serious, but if you read the linked article in the Daily Mail, all that has happened is that Monckton complained to Ofcom that the BBC Climate Wars documentary was unfair to him.
How was it unfair? It seems they didn't give enough screen time:
'The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument. It is a breach of its code of conduct.
'I was interviewed for 90 minutes and all my views were backed up by sound scientific data, but this was all omitted. They made it sound as if these were just my personal views, as if I was some potty peer. It was caddish of them.'
But the Daily Mail article doesn't include any of Monckton's scientific data either, so I guess it is also gravely misrepresenting him and making him look like a potty peer. In fact, the Climate Wars documentary did address the skeptics' scientific arguments, just not Monckton's specifically. Because the show wasn't just about Monckton.
If only Monckton was as good at science as he is at getting himself in the news.
Since I havn't seen the programme, I can't judge for myself. But since its Monckton being reported by the Daily Mail, the BBC has my vote already.
For the benefit of those who may not have seen these programmes, (but see TrueSceptics post #20 in the last thread), in programme 2 - the 'Fightback', Iain Stewart interviewed several of the well known sceptics. I think the interviews were done at the 'sceptics' conference in New York last May ?
The underlying theme of the programme was that although the sceptics thought they had discredited mainstreams science with the early satellite data and of course the Hockey stick, in fact AGW came out of the debate even stronger after the sceptics challenges were debunked.
I will have to watch my recording of the programme to confirm but I thought Monckton's only contribution was to continually accuse Michael Mann of fraud & lies (who also appeared on the programme expressing dismayed disbelief at some of the personal stuff he was accused of).
Iain Stewart spent more time with Pat Michaels and Roy Spencer - the latter admitting he was wrong over the early satellite temperature data. Towards the end of the program, Pat Michaels was filmed lecturing to the sceptic group and when he said something like "Global warming is real, he was booed mildly - to which he snapped back something like "get used to it".
Point is, it seems Monckton thinks more of his own abilities than most other people think of his abilities- especially the BBC.
I just watched the Climate Wars trilogy over the weekend.
Monckton should be thankful he was not given more prominence, because if he had been then he would have come out of it looking even more of a pompous, arrogant fool than he already does (if that is possible).
On the plus side, he is probably doing more than any other individual alive to discredit and disgrace what remains of that odious bunch of inbred dunces, fascists, and spongers that constitute the bulk of the British 'upper' class. We should be grateful for that much at least.
To be pedantic the correct form is "as if I were a potty peer".
Then again, this usage of the subjunctive is also meant to indicate a hypothetical state or a state contrary to reality.
"...the linked article in the Daily Mail..."
I see where it went wrong there. The Daily Mail.
A potty peer appears potty, apparently.
It seems to me that 'caddish' is a handy adjective ...
Torrents of the 3 programmes here http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=climate+wars
I note that in his latest sally at sppi, he signs off his piece with:
Monckton of Brenchley Christopher Monckton was policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister and has lectured on climate at university physics departments and at corporate meetings
Does anyone have any actually knowledge that he has given lectures to any physics departments (note plural) or that there were any physicists in attendance?
Looks like David Douglass [invited him to Rochester](https://www.pas.rochester.edu/urpas/department_colloquium_3)
>Department [of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester] Colloquium
>Tuesday March 4, 2008
>Speaker: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
>Event Location: B&L 106
>Talk Title: Apocalypse? NO! Why "global warming" is not a global crisis
I've just started watching "The Climate Wars" and I'm somewhat annoyed with Iain Stewart's inaccurate representation of the climate science of the 1970s. In his summary, he states:
When it comes to the question of the next ice age, even the scientists got it wrong.
Well, no. Some scientists "got it wrong," but the scientific community did not. For example, consider this from the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report "Understanding Climate Change: A program for action:"
We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate.
Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.
I suppose Iain Stewart thinks that playing up the global cooling angle will make for a better narrative, but it's a serious misrepresentation of the climate science of the time.
I agree. Stewart was quite wrong to perpetuate the global cooling myth of the 1970s. Quite why he did this when Naomi Oreskes was an advisor, for instance, is baffling. William Connolley has been looking at this too, and he has also co-authored a paper on the subject.
Ah, I see the underscores in the URLs have been read as tags. Let's try this
On another forum which I have now left because of the sceptic loons on there, I wrote (re part one):-
My few criticisms of it were:-
a) It concentrated a bit too much on Charles Keeling to the expense of many other founders of AGW. (Although I can see that the 'plucky scientist battling against all odds' - even if not entirely accurate - makes good television)
b) It seemed to exaggerate the 'cooling'/ice age ideas of the 1970's. My impression was (& I may very well be wrong) was that a couple of bloggers, (Eli Rabbett & somebody else I think) have surveyed the scientific literature and much of the USA press coverage in this period and have found that the idea wasn't very prevalent.
c) Iain Stewart, the presenter said that 'soot' was the cause of the post war 'cooling' of the atmosphere. This is scientifically incorrect. Soot, dirty brown or black soot' is actually a greenhouse warmer. (For the benefit of ( name withheld), think black-body radiation). It was the sulphate particles from burning coal mainly that produced the atmospheric cooling.
I was also a bit disappointed with part 3. It seemed to me to overly concentrate of rapid climate change & yes, the Younger Dryas was quoted again. The programme didn't mention what sea level rises might be, or possible desertification etc. It left my wife with the false impression that rapid climate change can occur at any time, by natural means so she concluded, as also many might, what's all the fuss about human GG emissions?
says it all really. I met him at the UNFCCC in Bali and, well, you can't help blaming journalist for making him look like a potty peer. He's completely bonkers. He was monstering journalists and hanging out with the CFACT gang who were offering free massages to people who went to their The Great Global Warming Swindle screening. I can't believe anyone actually takes him seriously. Nobody there did.
He's risen to fame by being taken on primarily by the Heartland Institute , who've rolled him out for a couple of years now as part of their "get al gore to debate" challenge. Other US think tanks have picked him up. These Americans think having a peer on their side will impress everyone.
I still don't understand why Monckton hasn't been silenced by the elite secret Environmentalist Black Helicopter Censorship Squad.
Well, he's more of an asset to us by being allowed to continue. Satire is powerful because it ridicules; self-satire is doubly so. This level of talent shouldn't be squandered. :D
Are you tacitly admitting that there is a elite secret Environmentalist Black Helicopter Censorship Squad? I thought you were visited by Green goons recently to ask you nicely to stop talking so much. I see here that your bank account is running a bit low, and there's some funny deposits in there. Maybe you need to hold your tongue a bit more, else the elite secret Environmentalist Bank Account Audit Squad might find some time to give you a little visit to talk about your funding and Make You An Offer You Can't Refuse...
Shhh... wait a minute. Notice something? There don't seem to be any climate trolls any on Deltoid lately. Where have they gone? Not that I miss them, but I want to know what they're now up to.
The trolls are probably reading Crichton to find out how to escape from the 'Environmentalist Black Helicopter Censorship Squad' - damn, now they know!
Seriously, they are all sitting in their mums basement waiting to fantasise over Sarah Palin when the 'debate' starts. A denier and a woman as well....
I gave it away there, didn't I, just I tacitly admitted the existence of the Illuminati in another forum?
If you see no more communications from me, then assume the worst. :D
Just shows how effective we are. They've all been herded into Watts, or, for the ones who find Watts too "reasonable", the Marohasy bog.
that's the difference between us. monckton is a potty peer, whereas i don't have a potty to peer in.
> Seriously, they are all sitting in their mums basement waiting to fantasise over Sarah Palin when the 'debate' starts. A denier and a woman as well....
> They've all been herded into Watts, or, for the ones who find Watts too "reasonable", the Marohasy bog.
Or perhaps they've been shepherded to blogs talking about the biden-Palin 'debate'... Aww shucks!
TrueSceptic mentions 'the Marohasy bog'.
And by corollary this implies the existence of... the bogosphere!
If you read some of the commentary Rich Lowry, you'd see how right you were. I wouldn't have wanted to shake his hand after the debate. Or clean his TV.
Thanks. I know that you have spent some time there attempting to educate the uneducable.
I like "bog" because it's so close to "blog", and because you need to wear waders to avoid getting covered in (lying) filth.
Did you also know that "bog" is slang for lavatory in the UK? I don't know if that's the case down under. :)