Seriously. And then a gullible journalist named Michael Coren wrote it down and put it in the Winnipeg Sun. Ed Darrell has the details.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Oh, no … we've almost missed it! Now we have to make a mad scrabble for birthday hats and noisemakers and cake and ice cream. It's the big 6010th birthday for planet earth, according to Ed Darrell and Phil Plait and these guys in Austin. Hmmm. Maybe we should at least make a quick trip to the Dairy…
Here's an educational opportunity for everyone!
The Community College of Rhode Island [CCRI] has proudly announced that this fall, a "reiki master" will be holding a seminar on "crystal and mineral healing" at the college. This, we're told, is
…a type of alternative therapy that involves laying…
Nick Matzke finds that Michael Finkel in the National Geographic is guilty of some sloppy reporting:
The article, for once, actually sensitively discusses the issue of DDT use, and notes accurately (for once) that environmental groups and governmental agencies were not and are not opposed to…
Following the heels of the Rosegate scandal where journalist David Rose was exposed as a serial quote fabricator, the credibility of Rose's newspaper, the Daily Mail, has taken another body blow with the paper publishing a false story claiming that Phil Jones had admitted that there had been no…
LOL.
Well, he IS a classical scholar (you know, all that latin and greek and stuff), and he IS renowned (as a crackpot). The only thing REALLY wrong with that quote is that he wasn't a science adviser to Mrs T. Being an accomplished Chemist herself, why would she want someone who knows what the latin third declension means to advise her on science?
I just read the article in the Sun. "world-renowned scholar". Monckton. I laughed so loud, I got complaints from the neighbours!
Equally funny is starting the article with a stab at leftist journalists thinking they are experts, only to have another journalist (Monckton) being considered an expert in climate change (and DDT...).
Mark, he isn't even a classical scholar. He's got a university college degree in journalism.
Marco, he went to Oxbridge.
From the man himself:
> My degree at Cambridge was in the classical languages and philosophy, which included science and mathematics
originating in ancient Greece and Rome.
Although I admit a risk in taking what he says as true, this one is pretty obviously testable.
Ancient world is classical studies.
Yeah Mark,
But did Monckton do classics or did he do PPE? There is a difference. If he did classics then all power to him.
This meme about him having been a science adviser to Maggie is an interesting one. I questioned it on Jo Nova's website and got flamed, then when I produced evidence from Monckton himself that he had been an adviser on education policy within no 10 and not a science adviser I still got flamed. Jo Nova later told me that she was going to produce a biographical note on Monckton as she said she wanted to set the record straight about him but I'm still waiting for it.
So that is why I want to know if it was classics or PPE as PPE is for thickos and I had a class mate from school in Sydney who went on to do classics.
So an undergraduate arts degree makes one a "scholar" does it Mark? Cool, this country is full of scholars driving taxis and flipping burgers then. Who knew until now?
You're right, Mark, he did go to Cambridge.
As Monckton crosses Canada, he's leaving a trail of uncritical reporting in his wake. For example, the Leader Post in Regina has this gem in its editorial section, entitled "The Necessity of Dissent".
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/Necessity+Dissent/2084673/story.html
About the only thing the Leader Post got right was the toadly photo to accompany this article...
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/Global+warming+dismissed+lies/2082364…
At least the photo-editor knows how seriously we should take this guy.
I think the Wikipedia entry is accurate:
He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.
a) A friend knew him @ Harrow.
b) My wife attended Cambridge (Girton, Maths) and often saw him running around at Cambridge Union debates, "always stirring up controversy".
Churchill College is famed for science students (Churchill had been impressed by MIT), but it purposefully has some humanities students as well. Perhaps his exposure to science students made him wish to be one :-)
In any case, while it would be impolitic for me to quote other comments by either a) or b), let us say that students of the Viscount would not be surprised...
"So an undergraduate arts degree makes one a "scholar" does it Mark?"
Sleepy, someone who studies the classics is a classical scholar.
That Latin is a dead language and is famously for the Old Boy Network in Whitehall (watch Yes Minister) just goes to show why he got into whitehall.
Actually the way I read Neil Scott's article PaulD, it makes a quite nice accompaniment to that child-frightening photo of the Mad Munchkin.
I think I can hear the journo's thoughts: "OK so I've been asked to cover this loon, fair enough - cop this unedited stream of his rantings, boss!"
Not bad, I laughed :)
@8
And reading the drivel from the Leader Post we get:
"Monckton, who is a member of the House of Lords in the U.K "
I wonder if there is some official censure that can be taken against someone who claims to be a member of Lords but who is not?
@12: he'll probably claim innocence, and make the error that of the journalist. Just like the "science advisor to Margaret Thatcher".
@8, from your second article:
""I'm just showing you lies after lies,'' said Monckton, in a speech to 50 people at a luncheon meeting of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, held at the Delta Regina."
Well, they got that bit right as well!
James Haughton,
That sounds like a real case of "the liars paradox".
> Well, they got that bit right as well!
> Posted by: James Haughton
Well, once he'd done at least one display of his own work, anyway...
H...H...H...Hypocrite...he really is nothing but a NIMBY hypocrite!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/12/lord-monckton-en…
The bad part of me wants them to find coal under this land...
Or, planning permission for a coal-fired power station.
Ahem...
Tim, Michael Coren is a columnist, not a journalist, the distinction being that he deals in opinion unencumbered by facts.
#17, Hugh: that's hilarious! Made my day, thanks!
I have seen Lord Christopher Monckton The Third Viscount of Brenchley speak on several occasions. Each time, he has introduced himself as a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Not a science advisor. I have Lord Monckton's official Bio on my desk right now, it clearly states that he was a special policy advisor. If you people spent 1 minute questioning the hockey stick graph or Gore's credentials for every hour you waste worrying about what MofB is doing, you'd all be skeptics buy now.
You know what I haven't seen as I've reviewed these posts? I haven't seen one single refutation of a fact he's put forth on his tour by anyone in this group. You're all so content to attack his education, while giving Gore a free pass. You sound like a bunch of moderately attractive schoogirls discussing how much they hate the new pretty girl.
I have an idea that might put all this to rest. Decide amongst yourselves who would be the most qualified to debate Lord Monckton and I'll discuss it with him the next time I see him.
Mashey, you've always had a big mouth when it comes to Monckton, might I suggest you volunteer?
@12 & 13
This was Monckton's response the last time the Deltoid Gang brought this up.
Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House. The portcullis is a generic heraldic device; the vicecomital coronet is a device that I have the specific right to use (and, indeed, I shall be wearing it when His Majesty King Charles III invites me, as he will invite all hereditary Peers, to his coronation). I am fully entitled to combine the portcullis and the vicecomital coronet and use it as a badge or logo, for the United Kingdom, unlike Deltoid, is a free country, whether you like it or not.
Mark E. Gillar is a Monckton groupie.
Lurker, you are almost correct: it appears that Mark E. Gillar is a *right wing Monckton-Palin* groupie.
MEG:
Well how about you name *one single fact* he's put forth on his tour.
Go on, just one.
Dare ya.
Tell us which one of his *facts* have so impressed you.
That would be the first time ever I feel ashamed for going to Churchill... strange, because mostly the intake is state-school/less well off/scientist.
Of course, Mark, if you regard going to a Cambridge College as making a person an unimpeachable source on scientific matters, then you'll just have to believe what I tell you. Especially as I did geology, which is slightly more relevant than classics here.
> Of course, Mark, if you regard going to a Cambridge College as making a person an unimpeachable source on scientific matters,
> Posted by: Andrew Dodds
Andrew, if you think that that was an endorsement you aren't reading.
This idea is reinforced by the following section from that post:
> Especially as I did geology, which is slightly more relevant than classics here.
Now go back to the post I wrote you are complaining about see this bit here:
> The only thing REALLY wrong with that quote is that he wasn't a science adviser to Mrs T. Being an accomplished Chemist herself, why would she want someone who knows what the latin third declension means to advise her on science?
I've
a) shown that MrsT didn't NEED a science adviser
b) shown that that statement is wrong. Actually REALLY wrong
You may also notice the following clues:
On being renowned:
> and he IS renowned (as a crackpot)
Check out the parenthesis (crackpot).
And on being a scholar (which has a particular meaning in English, though this may not be the case in whatever your native language is, it doesn't seem to be English...)
> Well, he IS a classical scholar (you know, all that latin and greek and stuff)
Note here the "latin and greek stuff".
Gaz,
It isn`t the scientific facts that impress people like MEG. It is the *political ideology that goes with denial* that makes the impression. Science has nix to do with it.
> Each time, he has introduced himself as a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Not a science advisor. I have Lord Monckton's official Bio on my desk right now, it clearly states that he was a special policy advisor.
> Posted by: Mark E. Gillar
Well he's always INTRODUCED as Mrs T's Science adviser.
He has said in interviews he was Mrs T's Science adviser.
But when he's had to write it down, he hasn't.
Maybe if you were less specific in your skepticism, you'd not be a denialist.
PS I notice in all your posts you haven't answered the one about him introducing himself as a member of the House of Lords.
If you spent less time obsessing over the Hockey Stick being wrong and
a) wondered why McIntyre's paper has so many errors but you haven't heard them
b) wondered why other papers that don't do what McIntrye says is wrong still get the Hockey Stick
c) wondered why you are being told that the only reason for AGW science is the hockey stick so you have to kill it when Arrhenius did the basic science a hundred years earlier
But are we sure she acted alone?
I've heard there's a theory there was a second environmentalist ...
"Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House,"
The House doesn't prove or have the need for satisfaction.
The House of Lords contains peers who have seats in the House of Lords and that is all they have to have satisfaction over.
Touting the House's approval is worthless, just as if he'd said "ask the parish priest, he is satisfied by it!".
It's done merely to ensure people think that this is some sort of approbation and to engender the unwarranted and unavailable power of the House of Lords.
Mark E Geller,
Try [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/).
This piece may help Meg understand the problem Monckton has with reality:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Mark - I was refering to the Mark immediately above my post, probably should have said MEG instead.
OK, my bad, then, Andrew.
Sorry.
> I have an idea that might put all this to rest. Decide amongst yourselves who would be the most qualified to debate Lord Monckton and I'll discuss it with him the next time I see him.
Based on Monckton's attitude to truth, Geoffrey Norman MP:
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Fast_Show/
Once again we have a "sceptic" (MEG) displaying one of the most common "sceptic" characteristics: ignoring the topic of the thread and saying "AlGore! AlGore! AlGore!". Don't they ever learn?
@Mark E Gellar:
It is true that the House of Lords secretariat has a role in confirming accession to a hereditary title (although the House as a legislative assembly has none). That is completely irrelevant, as Monckton should know, to his claim of membership in the House.
Even the reduced claim you quote of access to facilities is incorrect. As a hereditary who wasn't elected to sit by his peers, he is neither a member of the House of Lords nor does he have access to any of its facilities (other than by cadging off any noble friends he may have).
If you want a cite - go to the thread in which he made the claim you quote, and read my reply.
Note also his claim in the thread that he gave "scientific advice". From an educational background in classics and journalism and a career in the newspapers and at Smith Square.
Monckton always reminds me of Marty Feldman:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/people/marty_feldman_person_page.shtml
Michael Coren is another rightwing jerk with a column, of which there are far too many in Canada (he also has a local TV show, which I have not seen)
Incidently there is a Canadian group called Spread the Net, for donating insecticide-treated nets through UNICEF; http://www.spreadthenet.org/default_en.aspx which is publicized by Rick Mercer in his national TV show. He is much funnier and smarter than Coren.
Hi Holly, transplant here. Having had a one-on-one encounter with Coren, I can confirm that he is indeed a piece of work.
@PaulD #8:
It hasn't been entirely uncritical. When he spoke in Vancouver, a friend of mine in the city pointed out that the local media instead referred to him as having a "Whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet." It's a fitting description.
The really amusing part is that this paper is part of CanWest, Canada's media mogul empire famous for the National Post (Lawrence Solomon and Lorne Gunter are well-known columnists for it and often cited in denialist circles; even Deltoid's taken a jab or two at them). This is significant because 1) this paper took a jab at the Fraser Institute, which is basically Canada's Heritage Foundation, and 2) CanWest itself recently went insolvent and filed for creditor protection.
The thing is, being a hereditary peer is not the same as being a member of the house of lords, no matter how some people might like to conflate the two. Moreover the portcullis is a generic heraldic device or symbol which you can use easily enough. The key point here is that he mixes up the various ingredients to con colonials into thinking he is more important than he actually is.
Of course it would be nice if Monckton actually spent some time correcting those who seem to like his being a member of the HoL.
Hi transplant.
Brian D, what a good article you linked to. As soon as I saw the photo I realized that Monckton is a Toon. Remember the villain in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the Toon disguised as a human? That's him! Look up Judge Doom in Google images and you will see him.
The joke's on him because, for we uncouth colonials, the terms "lord" and "wanker" are interchangeable. Neither connotes importance, let alone credibility.
Gillar, really: Environmentalists as racists?
It's crap like that which removes your claims from the realm of the sane.
Debate Monckton? I'd take him on for DDT any time, though Tim would probably love to thrash him first.
But I propose we let him debate a Tenderfoot Boy Scout, under Scout Law rules.
Monckton would have to stay silent.
Meg is hereinafter a troll peer of the denialist realm, qualified to peer review troll posts and comments. This is a hereditary, non-voting rank.
Looks like the BBC is pushing [denialist weather presenters](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm) as Climate Correspondents. He [digs himself deeper in his blog](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/a-few-points-about-my-art…).
Pretty sad. Might not have made me as pissed if it was an editorial but they pushed it as news.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
Re: 49 huxley
Oh dear, I had seen the original article. But hadn't seen the blog response. What is it with weather reporters?
The last 11 years are outside model predictions??
Re: 49 - Hudson is a sad case, who, by the looks of it, is about to be much more famous than he was before http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/13/the-bbc-hudson-what-happened-to-g… - and not in a good way.
The replies to his blog are really on the money (apart from the usual loonies), with my favourite coming from DavidCOG - 'This is nothing more than a regional BBC weather presenter demonstrating his ignorance of climate change science in a blog post and then having it promoted to the main BBC news site by a scientifically illiterate editor.'
Man on fire!
BTW - Monckton isn't real - he's a made up character from an experimental splicing of Pythons 'Upper Class Twit of the Year' and the Fast Show - or that's what I keep telling myself..
@Brian D #43: Glad to see someone in the Canwest chain is doing some research. The Leader Post here -- also a Canwest paper -- finally today ran a few letters calling their editorial garbage -- and correcting the claim that Monckton is a member of the HoL. (http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/letters/index.html)
I work for an alt-weekly and the writer we had covering his Regina talk apparently asked him during the scrum what he thinks of all the people on the net who say he's full of sh!t. (And, yes, that's exactly what she asked him.) Apparently his eyes bugged out even farther and then he said, "Who says I'm full of sh!t?" Gee, Christopher... how about science?
@24&25
You Forgot Phelim McAleer.
@26
"dare ya" LOL Gotta love the mentality.
The following link will provide you with access to a presentation Monckton made during his April 09 tour. It also has the audio from his debate with Littlemore of DeSmogBlog, his Michael Savage Interview and a presentation he made at the Heartland Conference. Pick any one of those events and select the fact of your choice.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktonav.html
Feel free to pick a fact from any one these as well:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/monckton2.html
Oh yes, and have a nice day!
@29 Jeff do you always jump to conclusions with such limited information? Oh wait, you believe in AGW. You must do it all the time.
MEG,
C'mon now, you wear your heart on your sleeve. Look at your web site. Of course there is a political ideology in denial; why else are polluting industries and the think tanks and PR hacks they fund investing so much to downplay a range of human impacts on the biosphere. Because they care about good science? In my opinion they would not know good science if it hit them in the face. They do not give a damn about good science. They are, however, very concerned that the empirical evidence of AGW and other human assaults across the biosphere - which is massive and growing - will lead to the implementation of regulations limiting excessive corporate activities and that this will reduce profit margins. Investors do not like to see their returns go down.
Unlike you, MEG, I am a scientist and I do science. I also publish my results in peer-reviewed journals, I attend conferencers where these issues are debated and argued, and I also speak with many colleagues in the field who are doing the actual research. Most importantly, I tend to support those scientists, who constitute the vast majority in my profession, who believe that there is sufficient evidence for AGW to do something about it.
@30
A - post a few links for me or list the errors that most impressed you.
B - Pumping "red noise" into Mann's model produced a hockey stick. I imagine anyone who has ever toyed with it has produced a hockey stick. Was that not McIntyre's point?
C - Ah, the old "the science was settled 100 years ago" line. I posted this on YouTube Just for you.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CommonSenseAlliance#p/a
I've not seen him introduce himself that way. If you have a video or audio post it. I have seen him not correct a journalist who introduced him that way, but he did advise MT on many things including science so I'm not sure a correction is in order. His intro when visiting Texas A&M did not contain the words Science Advisor. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXC0OB72UHk
@31
I fully support the theory.
I believe the second environmentalist to be Rachel Carson.
re #44 by guthrie
The thing is, being a hereditary peer is not the same as being a member of the house of lords, no matter how some people might like to conflate the two.
Indeed, the House of Lords have told me that: "I can confirm that Lord Monckton of Brenchley (who only succeeded to his title in 2006) is not a Member of the House of Lords."
Moreover the portcullis is a generic heraldic device or symbol which you can use easily enough. The key point here is that he mixes up the various ingredients to con colonials into thinking he is more important than he actually is. Of course it would be nice if Monckton actually spent some time correcting those who seem to like his being a member of the HoL.
The HoL also told me in reference to the use of the crowned portcullis: "Use of the emblem by others is regulated by the two Houses, in accordance with the general principles governing parliamentary copyright."
They also told me that they would be investigating this, I note that since then Monckton's use of the emblem on his graphs etc.has decreased significantly.
Notice MEGs groups is called the "Common Sense Alliance" (and not the far right deregulation unlimited corporate profit alliance which in my opinion is much a more appropriate name).
The use of words like "Sensible", "Sound Science", "Reasonable" "Balanced" and the like are very often found in organizations that promote extreme right wing political agendas. This is done essentially to fool the public who often do not know the ideological or political agendas behind environmentally friendly names.
For instance, several years ago there was an organization called "Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain" that operated in the U.S. Interestingly, they apparently weren't any citizens in the organization, but it was funded by a number of electricity and coal companies anxious to downplay the effects of acid rain and to reduce or eliminate regulations dealing with the problem.
Many here are familiar with the now defunct "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" that received money from the tobacco lobby.
One of my favorites is the National Wetlands Coalition, which has a logo that shows a duck flying over a wetland. It is not campaigning to protect wetlands as its name suggests. The group was formed in response to a policy statement made in 1989 by President George Bush that his government's aim was to have no net loss of wetlands. The Coalition which is largely made up of oil and gas companies was formed to protect the right of its members to build, drill and farm in wetlands without impediment.
@32
Why is it that I've never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member? That claim is most often thrown about here at Deltoid?
Common sense would suggest that Monckton would have been publicly called out on it long ago if his claim were not true. Then again, the worldwide media is soooooooooooooo controlled by those favorable to him, they could be covering up for him.
@33
Already looked and wasn't impressed.
BTW, it's GILLAR
Monckton has been publicly called out for lying about his membership. See [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…).
@38
To attack Monckton's lack of scientific education while giving Gore, who once fluncked out of seminary school, a free pass is more than a bit of double standard. A double standard has been demonstrated here at Deltoid many times.
Eyewitnesses suggest it was someone located on Peak Wingnut.
Mark E Gillar,
I didn't realise Gore was fabricating his CV. Please show me the evidence and stop giving Gore a "free pass".
BTW, are you aware you are guilty of double the sins you are attributing to others, first giving Monckton a 'free pass', second hypocrisy.
Shame on you!
Return when you have some useful evidence.
@39
Robin, I will go back and read your post. In the meantime, I will remind you that the lack of a scientific background does not preclude one from giving scientific advice. Are you suggesting that neither Gore nor Monckton should be allowed to give testimony in Washington D.C. regarding Cap and Trade legislation? Sorry TrueSceptic, but it had to be said. Gore is a great example of someone without scientific credentials who has given advice to goverments on this subject many times. Why then do you doubt that MT might have received such advice from MofB?
@39 How relevant. I wish I had the discipline to stay on topic like you.
*A double standard has been demonstrated here at Deltoid many times*
This guy breaks me up. One look at his site should tell the reader why.
@47
Nice to see you again Ed. I'll pass your interest on to MofB.
> Why is it that I've never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member?
> Posted by: Mark E. Gillar
They've not publicly stated I'm not a member of the House of Lords either.
Call me Lord Mark of Effingham Hall.
@47
Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney are entitled to their opinions.
> B - Pumping "red noise" into Mann's model produced a hockey stick. I imagine anyone who has ever toyed with it has produced a hockey stick.
I imagine you haven't.
I tried for ages to get this by someone's description of how they themselves did it.
I got noise, and plotted the graph and it wove up and down, not making a hockey stick.
They told me I had to add the noise values up.
I did that and it produced a line that went wobbly up, but in a straight line and also never went down, unlike the hockey stick.
They told me I had to use Mann's data.
I asked if I used Mann's data and got a Hockey Stick, isn't that going to prove Mann is correct?
They told me no. They said (now) that I needed Mann's method but noise as the data.
I asked how they did it, and for their data, since they said they'd done it.
They said that it was Mann's method and I should get it from him, since they didn't have it.
I asked if they did it, how come they didn't have Mann's method?
They said they definitely DID do it and that I was wrong to say otherwise.
I asked again for the method they used to create the noise and the method they used to create the hockey stick.
They said "Use Mann's work". Again.
I asked that they did it, so I'd like to see THEIR work.
They said that I had to produce red noise, since normal noise wouldn't work.
I asked, what red noise was and how to create it.
Silence.
I asked if red noise was "take random data +/- around 0 and add it to exponentially increasing values with time" because that *would* produce a hockey stick but unfortunately that required that noise be added to a hockey stick and therefore not prove very much.
So I ask you:
Have YOU done it.
HOW.
> I didn't realise Gore was fabricating his CV. Please show me the evidence and stop giving Gore a "free pass"
Meg is doing a Ducky, Janet.
Jeff, please. I can't believe you're dragging out that tired old line that suggests everyone who refuses to drink the AGW Kool-Aid is being funded by the oil or coal industry. The funding from these groups is pennies on the dollar compared to what the government has handed out in the way of grants for research.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/clima…
As for my heart, what heart? I'm a heartless capitalists who doesn't care about clean air, clean water or any other part of the environment remember? Neither do I care about poor people around the globe who can't afford to eat thanks to bio-fuel mandates that have driven up the price of food. Wait, ignore the last one. Actually, I've probably planted at least as many trees in my community this year as you have, if not more.
A scientist who does science? Really Jeff? As opposed to a scientists who does windows? You crack me up too.
Here are a few scientists who disagree with you:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html
I agree with you about those bad old corporations. In the 70s their careless polluting was causing cooling and now it's causing warming. Do they care? I think not. I am proud of those of you that have figured out that industry is to blame regardless of which way the thermometer is trending. The good news is the solution is always the same. Tax! Tax! Tax!. I'm switching sides Jeff. As a friend, tell me where you buy your carbon offsets? I'd like to buy them from myself like a certain former politician, but I need to take action now and there isn't time to set up a company. Thanks in advance for your help.
>Robin, I will go back and read your post. In the meantime, I will remind you that the lack of a scientific background does not preclude one from giving scientific advice.
I'm scared.
Really scared.
>Are you suggesting that neither Gore nor Monckton should be allowed to give testimony in Washington D.C. regarding Cap and Trade legislation?
That would be opinion on a political issue, not about science. Cap and trade is politics.
@64
Tim, how nice to see you again. Allow me to congratulate you. I didn't realize sources less credible than the National Enquirer existed, but you've proven me wrong.
I can't wait to read your review of Not Evil, Just Wrong.
If you think of it, please email me an advance copy. Thanks.
@67
Janet, in the future, please actually read the entire board before commenting.
If you scroll to the very top (hopefully you know how to do that) you'll see that Monckton's lack of true scientific credentials was being discussed before I arrived. This is a tired old passtime here at Deltoid, yet the participants never seem to grow tired of it.
I was trying to point out that to question Monckton's lack of scientific credentials without questioning Gore's lack of scientific credentials makes the people here guilty of employing a double standard.
"Return when you have some useful evidence."
Why don't you return when you can follow a
string and add a comment that makes sense?
> I will remind you that the lack of a scientific background does not preclude one from giving scientific advice.
It does rather weaken the assumption that the advice given is sound...
Oh, and if this an attempt to get Monckton's lies on being a science adviser to a scientist, then it fails.
Why would a chemist of Thatcher's capability want someone who doesn't even know his latin for "Homer Nods" (which is in its original latin a shorthand for "Even Home sometimes dozes off and misses things" (nodding off), but Monckton used the latin for "Nods his head" (as if Homer agrees).
And as to his scientific capabilities, please read this:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
If you disagree, please point out where he has made a mistake.
>Neither do I care about poor people around the globe who can't afford to eat thanks to bio-fuel mandates that have driven up the price of food.
How about the people that can't afford to eat because they have less land to farm as a result of climate change?
How much land does a flooded city of 200,000 people take up?
eg. In such a case, the population would displace farm land that would have produced food for the city and others. The remaining farmland would have to produce more food and hence would require more inputs to keep it going or it would become sterile at a faster rate.
If you like taking gambles, don't take it with your own kids future, assuming you have them.
@61
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You don't like my website. You don't like the name of my group. Yet I still hold out hope(perhaps naively)that one day we'll bump into each other at a Sarah Palin rally in Chicago and become good friends.
Mark EG.
>I was trying to point out that to question Monckton's lack of scientific credentials without questioning Gore's lack of scientific credentials makes the people here guilty of employing a double standard.
Isn't the problem that you take Gore far more seriously for his presentations and campaigning than anyone here.
AFAIK Gore doesn't challenge any scientists with his own theories.
I believe Monckton attempts his own analysis, yet as pointed out here, he has no scientific background.
No problem with me following the threat MEG, that's why I've called you on giving Monckton a free pass and for being a hypocrite.
I'm happy to reiterate.
I notice you still lack the basic constituent of evidence in your argument. So three strikes. Well at least you've got bluster, but that only cuts if for ill informed ideologues, you don't cut it here.
BTW your site is an embarrassment of propaganda. But at least you look rich, too bad that the ideology you are pushing has brought a once great nation to its knees. Bad luck on that one.
>Why is it that I've never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member?
1. How often do you watch the House of Lords in the US? (assuming you have access to it).
2. Why would they bother? What relevance does it have to parliamentary procedure? If anyone really took him seriously the police might prosecute for fraud. I think you are applying American sensibilities to an old bloke that claims he's a lord. You partly want to believe that a weird looking English bloke would tell the truth because he supports your belief.
Your question is a typical one that I would expect from a conspiracy theorist.
>Why is it that I've never seen a member of the house of lords publicly state that Monckton is not a member?
That is moronic!
Why have I never heard the board of surgens say your not a doctor? That proves your a doctor in Hooterville!
Have you considered renaming your site Hooverville, that's two massive depressions down to your idiotic ideology!
72 Mark,
My dear Effingham, it will be a pleasure. :D
74 Mark,
Interesting. Can I ask who "they" were? It would be useful to know who these fantasists/incompetents/liars are.
74 Mark,
I assume you _do_ know what red noise is but wanted _their_ explanation?
84 Paul,
Exactly. It is a signature of AGW "sceptics" to shriek "Algore! Algore! Algore!". They seem to think he's somehow crucial to the great AGW "conspiracy". It's quite amusing just how obsessed with him they are. No one on the "mainstream science" side cares much about him at all.
@Janet #87:
Don't suggest that - if he does, it'll destroy the pun should Paul UK or I be driven to call him a right tit (which is such a good one on more than one level).
@Mark E Geller #68:
(Apologies for the previous mis-spelling - I take it you're not related to Buffy?)
A couple of points. Firstly, unless I'm much mistaken Monckton would have last studied science at age 16, for O-levels - and perhaps not even then. I know that the Classics scholars at my school gave up Physics at 14; although given that Monckton's school is considerably younger it may have had different ideas.
Secondly, he graduated with his diploma in journalism and went straight to work for the Yorkshire Post - nowhere there or in his subsequent career of stints at Smith Square punctuated by editorships of The Universe and right wing rags is there any indication of any serious scientific study. He makes the ludicrous claim that he got a serious grounding in the scientific method doing classics at Cambridge. The idea that he was in a position to give a rather intelligent chemist (no-one can both have worked as a research chemist and a tax barrister without some intelligence) scientific advice on the basis of having read some classical writings on science is beyond ludicrous.
Gore doesn't pretend to any specific scientific expertise; although he does have the advantage that he at least took one science course at Harvard - from Roger Revelle.
That though is irrelevant; the point of AIT is to present the findings of others, not to claim the research as his original work. Monckton, on the other hand...
As for whether they should be giving evidence re Cap and Trade? They are neither of them economists, although Gore's experience in government must count for something. They are neither of them scientists. You tell me; should they be giving testimony?
> I assume you do know what red noise is but wanted their explanation?
> Posted by: TrueSceptic
More than that, I want how they produced red noise.
Since the barnpot says they did it themselves, this should be simplicity itself.
And since they cannot (at least have not yet) given their method of creating red noise, this is proof that they didn't actually do the work themselves.
> Interesting. Can I ask who "they" were? It would be useful to know who these fantasists/incompetents/liars are.
> Posted by: TrueSceptic
Denialist numpties on the BBC blogs by Richard Black etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
Currently they're going back over the "Computer models aren't science!" and "All I want is PROOF!" and slowly morphing back to "It's saturated, so how can CO2 be the culprit!".
Oh, and I note that they're going now for the "it's been cooling for the last 10 years!" (and ignoring that we've got 2009 mostly done).
It's depressing, really.
93,94 Mark,
Thanks, that's what I expected: they were just repeating claims made by McIntyre & co., IOW, they were lying, as they clearly did not do it themselves. If I had done what they claim, I wouldn't be able to wait to tell everyone exactly how, in the finest detail.
I admire anyone who tries to fight the foul deluge of anti-science nuttery at climate-related blogs at the BBC, Guardian, etc. I just hope it's not futile.
More fun and games at the DM.
http://tinyurl.com/ylaqqh3
> I admire anyone who tries to fight the foul deluge of anti-science nuttery at climate-related blogs at the BBC, Guardian, etc. I just hope it's not futile.
> Posted by: TrueSceptic
Problem is, it IS futile.
All you can do is make sure they don't get the Great Lie unopposed. You aren't going to convince PAW and Mango even with Tablets From God stating AGW is right (with the Big Yin there to confirm).
This article claims
What a travesty of the truth! Is it sheer incompetence or a bare-faced lie?
(The Mail, of course, is the RW rag that publishes Melanie Phillips's anti-science garbage.)
The problem TS is that they will _INSIST_ they haven't lied.
They have by omission. You only get 1934 as the hottest year if you ask "what is the hottest year ... in the US".
cf Grima's "I never, never, never, ever, never lie".
PS where's Meg gone?
Hopefully he's working out whether this person:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
is right on Monckton's mistakes.
100 Mark,
I've just posted there about that (first time I've done so). I see that several others have complained too, but no correction has appeared in the article.
It's funny to see the same old, same old, tripe.
Tax! Scam! Canute! Algore!
It's also funny that many are rating simple facts with "down arrows". How do these cretins even use a computer?
#97 - The Daily Mail article is pretty much what you expect of the Mail, the headline and first half being stupid/Melanie Philips. They even mention Easterbrook. But if you scroll down, you have Latif, Forster and the Met Office all mentioned. Of course few DM readers are looking at the second half of the story, having been assured in their prejudices by the headline. The DM has a habit of this, with a recent story about insects supplied by by the charity my wife works for ending up as 'Invasion of the Killer Spiders'. She was not pleased...
As for Hudson - Leo Hickman asked the BBC nicely what's going on http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/13/bbc-blog-or-news… , and got a terse non-reply. Someone in the BBC is a little embarrassed. Well done to those posting at the BBC and the Guardian - great work.
I'm all right - I get Midlands and we have Des http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastmidlandstoday/content/articles/2007/11/02/des_… - I have no idea what he think about climate change, but he's far cooler than Hudson.
Re: 97
That looks quite tame for the Daily Mail, both article and comments.
"If you scroll to the very top (hopefully you know how to do that) you'll see that Monckton's lack of true scientific credentials was being discussed before I arrived."
No she won't. She'll see that Monckton's lying about his credentials was being discussed - lying that apparently hasn't diminished your credulity one bit.
Now why don't start backing up some of your empty rhetoric and assertions by answering Mark's comment 74?
Pretty amazing. They seem to think if they don't like the facts, they can just say the facts are no good. This is what "denial" means, i.e. being in denial of the facts.
106 Chris,
You are a warmofascist! You claim that those figures are for the USA alone, but that is just part of the great green leftist nazi conspiracy!
Algore! Algore! Algore!
(I used to get bored with Frank Bi's "shorter xxxx" comments, but he was right all along.)
Denial Depot continues to struggle to top the real thing (Poe's Law rules).
That looks quite tame for the Daily Mail, both article and comments.
Thanks for the warning. Won't be wasting any more of my life on that rag and its supporters again.
I guess progress ain't for everybody. Some people just need to be left behind. Ain't much else can be done with them.
I've read somewhere, that people who become so attached to an ideology don't change their minds, they die out.
I hope our decision makers arn't waiting for [such deniers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/monckton_blames_jackie_kennedy…) to change their minds?
MEG,
"The funding from these groups is pennies on the dollar compared to what the government has handed out in the way of grants for research."
..he says, cheerfully equating research funding with money to push a particular line.
You're not going to claim that research funding is contingent on which way your findings go, are you?
Mark, Mark, Mark...
Most of the scientists listed as sceptics on your site have negligible publication records. Where is their science? George Monbiot has examined the motivations of many of these people in some of his columns. No need for me to do that here.
I am also not saying that all of the sceptics by any means are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries or think tanks but many of the most prominent ones are at least associated with them. Moreover, many of the sceptics share a right wing (liberatarian) ideology which promotes evisceration of government regulations in pursuit of private profit.
I also find your web site unintentionally humorous in that you appear to think that the Obama administration is some far left liberal gang intent on reducing or eliminating freedoms in the U.S. Essentially, over here in Europe we are beginning to realize (as many of us knew all along) that Obama is nothing more than Bush with a public relations makeover; look at the foreign policies of the Bush and Obama administrations (not to say many of the characters involved) and Imperial Brand U.S.A. is pretty much exactly the same as before. Paul Street describes exactly why Obama won the Nobel Prize, and it isn' because his policies abroad have deviated one iota from those of George W.Bush and his neocon cronies.
(http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/22842)
To be honest, given the fact that the US political system has long been beholden to commercial elites, I find it amusing - to say the least - when I see web sites like yours with all of its rhetoric.
ChrisK@110
Lobbyist, lobby-tanks and propagandist front groups like Gillar's only need spend pennies in the dollar to influence [polical decisions](http://www.google.com/search?q=ROI+lobbying&rls=com.microsoft:en-au&ie=…) with greater political effect than hard earned solid scientific evidence.
Yet this is only a faction of the plutocractic influenc that displaces democractic process. We ought also tally the costs of the revolving door between government and various industrial profit complexi; then tally the costs of ripping of the public with poor decisions and narrow self interest resulting from this plutocratic imbalance of power; the cost of suppression of disruptive alternatives; and on, and on etc...
Mark Byrne@112
Yes, sadly true. It costs a lot less to muddy the waters than to do real science. They also rely on people's tendency to give more credibility to sources who tell them what they want to hear.
Mark Byrne @112, The Onion already did the hard work of tallying the costs and benefits:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down
ack.
[link here](http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down)
MEG,
Another point is that the creationists can also point to lists of scientists who support them. (And like the AGW 'sceptics', they also inflate the numbers by including people who aren't really scientists.)
But in the end, so what? Science is not decided by scientists expressing opinions or signing petitions, it is by scientists doing research, gathering data, making and testing hypotheses, that sort of stuff. You know, science. Which is what our 'sceptical' scientists have completely failed to do.
James,
Beautiful link. I love the Onion; when I was a post-doc at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 12 years ago their magazine was a real tonic.
The article sums up the myth of "trickle-down" economics; the same thing happened when Friedman-type "shock therapy" was applied to essentially fascist regimes in Latin America with US support during the 1970s and 1980s. Much of the middle classes were dumped into poverty while the rich became even richer. Wealth was concentrated; the idea that "all boats are lifted" by these policies was shown to be absolute nonsense; only those with yachts appeared to benefit.
Chris K also makes an excellent response to MEGs inflated list of scientists who deny AGW. The petitions are a load of crap in my opinion. Scientists are paid to do science, but many of the sceptics do not seem to think that doing actual science is very important, but appear to be happy to have their names crop up on these lists. Check out their publication records and maby have utterly meager ones.
James @114/115,
You've got a keen memory, I can rarely find two year old gems when I want them!
Isn't it odd how denialists proclaim that consensus isn't science and they say that AGW shouldn't be actioned against because there's no consensus. And also point to the Oregon Petition and 3000 signatures being proof that AGW is wrong.
Meg's "pennies on the dollar" meme keeps getting promoted by a frequent denier pauls over at desmogblog.
And when it comes to "pennies on the dollar", the coal industry alone in the US alone gets government subsidies of $3.1Bn a year. Oil over $15bn a year. Nuclear $5Bn a year (mostly the actuarial cost from the US underwriting the insurance costs that commerce will not touch with a barge pole: does Meg and his cronies want government out of that??).
Just for the US alone.
This adds up to lots of pennies from each person and dwarfs the monies paid to green projects.
Mark,
Well said... and on top of that look how much money industry spends lobbying members of Congress... in 1998, for example, big oil spent 58.2 million dollars, and agrobiotech companies 129.3 million dollars doing this. The same year, ALL NGOs spent a combined 4.7 million dollars. This includes NGOs representing a wide array of areas, including environmental groups (this was more than 10 years ago). This excludes the money spent by industry as campaign donations and other ways of currying favor with government, explaining why the US is essentially a plutocracy. In spite of what MEG says, as far as I am concerned there is barely a scintilla of difference between the Democrats and Republicans (as Gore Vidal once said, there is one party - the Property Party - in the US with two right wings, Republican and Democrat).
That is why I peruse MEGs web page with amusement; I don't think there would be much of a difference in foreign policy even if the Sarah Palin was president. Perhaps Iran would already have been flattened by U.S. bombs, and levels of violence in Afghanistan might be a bit higher, but not much else, at least in terms of foreign policy. The political agenda of both parties is remarkably consistent.
121 Jeff,
There's an old joke here, comparing US to UK politics.
"You see, the Republicans are like the Conservatives, whereas the Democrats are like the... Conservatives."
TS, mind you, it's now: Labour are like ... the conservatives...
Mark and TrueSceptic.
Sadly, the same applies for the Australian Labor Party, although there is admittedly a slightly more humanitarian approach to refugees and assylum seekers by the ALP than there was by the previous Conservative Government.
And although their approach to emissions control is nothing to write home about, at least they have the pretense - the Conservatives went to the last election with quite a number of their prominent Members still actively and vociferously denying AGW.
Some still do.
Maybe one problem is that money is needed to get "face time" with the public and it's more about voting for the name you know now that there's no real difference between the parties (there are still differences between candidates, but in the UK, the whips have far too much control and MPs tend to vote party rather than constituent).
This need for money to get voted for is why there's an inevitable drift to right wing (in so far as the monied are exalted by the right wing and "the poor" exalted by the left [though there's a whole other rant about the left's definition of the poor]). If you need money, those WITH money are the ones you need to get it from. And they won't help those who don't help the rich.
Conglomeration and homogenisation of media would adequately explain this.
I can't believe conservatives would dare try to BRAG about Monckton's credentials--real or otherwise--in the Roight Honowwable Piffaloon Society of the Divine Dervish or whatever the hell all his boilerplate assertions about portcullises and flying buttresses and wainscottings are supposed to mean. It's the most absurd example of fawning over meaningless idle pseudocredentials I've ever seen.
I had assumed Mark Gellar's first post, including those credentials, was a JOKE. But no, apparently Monckton and his fans actually care about his Ministry of Silly Walks drivel and expect us to care too. Maybe they haven't gotten around to reading the IPCC reports because they haven't finished announcing all of Monckton's roight honowwable titles aloud.
The "number of scientists" thing is an area which both sides have problems with.Steven Schneider admitted that only 400 of the 2500 IPCC people were really climate scientists,and the Oregon petittion is really only meant to demonstrate that there is no 'consensus'.It is not about the science.
Well, since the 2.5K included such luminaries as Steve McIntyre, Vincent Gray, Monckton, Richard Courtney and other expert reviewers, gotta say frank has a point.
However, frank, the veracity of the IPCC report doesn't rely solely on the number of people reviewing, unlike (say) the Oregon Petition for denialists.
The petition doesn't HAVE any science. All it has is the number of signees.
Take that away and the oregon petition (and all its vampiric children in whatever name they use) has nothing.
Take 2500 reviewers from the IPCC report and you still have the science.
hurry over to WattsUp, and his read laudation for the Lord, titled ["Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton"](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereign…)
of course including:
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher...
and some birth certificate myths:
would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
if that is not insane enough for you, take a look at the "confirmations" in the treaty, for the claims that Monckton made about it:
World Government (heading added) (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added) b) The Conventionâs financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added) © The Conventionâs facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
isn t it just wonderful, how those "added" headlines directly follow from the real text in the treaty?
i want to add (for once) a positive remark about "sceptics": even many of the Wuwt readers are pointing out, that Monckton and his ramblings are rubbish.
unfortunetly, Roy Spencer is not among those:
Roy Spencer (05:49:10) : âconspiracyâ is such an emotional term. Why not âconcerted planâ instead?
Yes true,the only point I am making is that we have to be careful of all the numbers that are being thrown around,ecspecially in the media.Speaking of which the 'scientific' reviewers of the SPM is a lot less than 2500.Not true?
But the point to take is that the *science* in the IPCC has been reviewed.
If the work and honest of those reviewers are not accepted then the "skeptic" should look at the science and review it themselves.
However, given that there are still massive numbers of "skeptics" who do not believe the review process *still* go on about "Why does the IPCC say only CO2 is the problem? They just ignore everything else and that's why this AGW is a scam!". Since the IPCC report has a complete Chapter on attribution and even reading the "contents" section would show this, they haven't trusted the reviews but do not want to review it themselves either.
Nail has a NEW!!! "paper" on his site, apologies for bringing him back on here, but it does work with sod's post here.
It seems like some denialists are too much even for WUWT (so I guess I'd better dial back my disgust at the moderators on there at least). From his paper he proclaims science blogs have not a jot of science. Even WUWT:
> One of our staff members was offended and banned by the owner of a well known âscientificâ blog (Watts Up With That or WUWT) just for having quoted from a book on Radiative Heat Transfer, exposing the pseudoscience expressed by one of his moderators, called âPhil.â The owner of the blog got extremely furious at our colleague, and insulted him by saying that his science was ridiculous (even when he had cited exactly the words of Dr. Modest which had been taken from his book on Radiative Heat Transfer
Though this may be more that Nail slammed WUWT, at least they show they know anti-science when it's aimed at them. And there's the hope that they know it in other cases.
just funny to watch: Anthony has removed a lot of the "birther" remarks, and updated the original post, claiming that Monckton "refuted" the birther question.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]
but löooking at the exchange, that is not how i would describe what Monckton did:
Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose itâs signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I â I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
I donât believe it until I see it. ⦠Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasnât born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once heâs signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once heâs signed it and ratified it â your Senate ratifies it â youâre bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they wonât be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what theyâve worked out is this â and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that â and here you have a point â is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
"clearly refute" does sound different in my part of the (real) world. what Monckton said was: "YES". and "there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii".
nut hey, that could be just me...
oh and watch Anthony's logic:
Even so, I think we have a better track records here of posting alternate viewpoints than RC, âOpen Mindâ, or Climate Progress. WUWTâs traffic certainly beats all of those so I must be doing something right. â Anthony
Mark, put down those rose-colored glasses NOW. They're dangerous ...
126 TTT,
When I first saw posts by such as GM Bird, Hissink, and Dash Riprock, I also assumed they were parodies. Not so: reality is weirder than anything we can imagine.
:D
ouch. a guy at WUWT has posted a link to the youtube video of the Monckton speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&hl=de
you should take a look at the Lord, if you never saw him speak before.
funny start: Lord Monckton is opening his speech with a joke about a hawaiian birth certificate. (about 2 minutes into the video)
so much for "debunking" it.
i urge you all to watch at least the first 10 minutes of the video (if you can bear it). i promise an awful lot of comical moments.
Lord Munchkin is comedy gold, proving that unintentional humour is hard to beat.
I bet he doesn't talk about his letter to get some environmentally pleasant land near him to be protected from development...
Hey, we'd better watch out in case Meg comes round again to tell us all off for dissing His Lord And Master...
"global warming=religion", is that you Girma?
ZOMG - the comments at WUWT are simply incredible. Birthers, truthers, tenthers, Bigfoot enthusiasts all turned into a stew.
Wolverines!
the video is now showing a link to the [Monckton presentation.](http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf)
it includes about every false statement on climate, that a denialist can bring up. (and of course all the Monckton stuff about DDT, HIV, ...) of course most people wouldn t use 174 slides for a 90 minutes presentation, but hey...
the video is really hard to watch. Monckton is constantly doing weird voices and the way in which he is pointing out his personal contributions to destroy the AGW myth is embarassing.
Hee, hee.
It sounds like the guy doing the intro says "3rd Discount Monckton ..." after about 20 seconds.
I guess he's mispronouncing Viscount. Perhaps someone with better hearing than me could confirm that. On the other hand ...
Yup, he's anglicising the french/latin pronounciation.
Vie count
not
Viz count
The MC does the latter.
Mind you, his nose is so far up Monckton's arse it's no wonder he can't get the words out clearly...
The WUWT thread has brought up almost every crackpot idea under the sun (although the mods stopped at our President being JFK's secret love child - think about that for a minute). This is just the tip of the crazy-berg that we will be seeing over the next year or so. One can see this in the reaction to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the conservative Republican co-wrote an editorial with Sen. John Kerry, and who faced hostility at a town meeting in his home state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP7nCyqMTsE.
In the U.S. there is a core of right-wingers who see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries fighting against the tyranny of Federal, UN and One World rule. They see action to prevent disastrous climate change as a campaign to take away people's rights and cede sovereignty to the UN (the IPCC is not recognized as a scientific body, but as a political body). I don;t know whether it's a feeling of powerlessness (demographics in the U.S. are shifting) or reflected anger at the effects of globalization, or what, but there is an anger out there.
The WUWT thread has allowed for the expression of the politics of the site's readers, and has given a glimpse of what lies behind the scientific arguments made there. How does one have a rational, scientific argument with a birther? It's like a car wreck you can't turn away from.
It's weird that some posters at TWatts have only just realised how many RW nutters inhabit the place.
And this one is just hilarious.
I think Jackbequick's post is quite indicative of how lost some people are.
Why does *everything* have to have "a balance"?
We don't request a balance to the idea that "apple" is spelt that way, or that adding two an three creates five.
And if everything DOES have a balance, well, why complain about those who balance "The US public voted for him" with people who say "He's an illegal alien and therefore not president"?
It's not that Obama is illegitimately president that's wrong with jack, but the idea that there's another side to AGW and it's represented by the deniers.
151 Mark,
Quite. Does anyone demand a "balance" in "debates" about evolution, relativity, or quantum mechanics?
Actually, yes, some do, but we know what sort of types they are.
The problem is that these people don't realise that the balance they are looking for (if they are honestly looking for the issues and uncertainties) are not in WUWT, but in the IPCC report itself.
They're at best assuming that the IPCC is as biased as WUWT and assuming that since WUWT is telling them the IPCC is wrong that they must be the "balance".
Best post yet from that WUWT: Monckton is actually on *our* side, not theirs!
Poe or schmoe? How can one tell?
> Poe or schmoe? How can one tell?
> Posted by: dhogaza
There's often a quote given to "absolve" the idiots or greedy:
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence".
However, why?
In fact, why is incompetence on the part of the powerful and influential better than malice on their part?
A malicious money grabber will be caught and malice means justice gets a look-in. I.e. punishment.
But if they are incompetent, at *best* on being caught they will be let go. Most likely, especially if influential, given a huge golden parachute (more lost money). And may, it seems nowadays certain, given a more influential post instead.
Malice can also fade. People have had a change of heart. I don't know many people who had a change of brain...
It looks to me like it's better to have malice as the reason than stupidity.
Of course in the numbnut you quote, there's a lot of both. But more malice. After all, they looked up the freezing point of all this, so were not ignorant.
If Monckton had his way, these people would run the country, and the Tories would be very, very happy:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/EAco.html
The paranoia is all over:
Somebody ought to follow Monckton on his tour. Every stop his exaggerations get wilder and wilder.
In Minneapolis, for example, DDT won the Nobel Peace Prize, and DDT had got the malaria death rate down to just 50,000 a year!
No, I'm not making that up:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-agai…
interesting swing of events:
just after publishing a new Monckton piece, including his absurd DDT comments, WATTSUP has a new piece, "taking apart" a scientific paper, showing a hockey stick form in a arctic proxy.
[the research shows a drop in cold sensitive mosquito-like midges in recent years.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/19/proof-that-media-is-hyping-agw-sh…)
WATTSUP and the regulars, being a group of people with strong scientific principles, have come up with an ad hoc explanation: DDT.
so small globally circulating remains of DDT, which Monckton just described as a harmless thing, that was unfortunetly banned by some communists, has eraticated midges in the arctic. sounds great, doesn t it?
Sod, you're making my head hurt. Combine that with the fact that previously worthless, unreliable tree rings now "prove" that GCRs, not CO2, drive climate change and ... wow ... impressive, no?
well, to stop me from keeping too confused, i always repeat their basic principle:
science that supports AGW: bad and false
science that (seems to) support denialist positions: good and true!
if you stick to this, everything starts making sense: the banned but harmless DDT kills midges in the arctic? of course!
all tree rings show the same growth, because cosmic rays (responsible for the recent global warming, ehm, cooling) are of course the same everywhere? makes perfect sense!
Within the remarks seen here, over and over and over, where is the proof he is wrong about his message,,,I understand the problems you elitists get so up tight about, ( who went to the best school, who didnt, who has a better grip on the subject) and by the way, the subject is not who he advised or how, where he had access to or didnt, BUT As I see it, Global Warming and does it or does it not exist as a problem..
Yes the globe gets warm, every morning the sun comes up somewhere and the Earth gets warmed, I sorta like that arrangement, But to claim we will soon be under water because we melted all our ice, is just a money making premise that people like Gore use to live on... Some say there has been no warming in the past 10 to 12 years, depending where you read it...I just moved back to the US from Mexico, where in the last 3 years, the fruit crops froze and we now see many of the growers giving up and just digging up trees to plant chili. All I heard was, Send me some of that global warming PLEASE...
OK, Ed D wins, thousands of hard-working, highly-trained scientists are wrong.
Phew, glad we solved this global warming problem so easily ...
Quite right Dog. It's amazing how such apparently complex problems can be resolved with a couple of well chosen references to Al Gore and the conditions for fruit growing in California. You do know the Vikings grew grapes don't you?
Now, if only the problems associated with constantly rising 30-year average temperatures, disappearing sea-ice extent, decomposition of the permafrost, disappearance of snowpack, loss of habitat, loss of variuous tropical and temperate forests, increasingly acid seas and so forth could be dismissed with the same ease, my day would be err ... much sunnier.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
Take your hands away from covering your eyes, then.
What? You aren't using your hands?
In that case, slowly pull your head out . . .
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
How much money can you document that Gore is making from the Maldive Islands?
If you're certain there's no threat from warming, why not invest in beachfront property there, now? It will pay off big, when the Maldives don't sink.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
Monckton lies:
7:32 âNow we have as scientific phrase, we scientists, for thisâ¦â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc
Call him on it. Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.
re: #27 Andrew
Just because Monckton attended is no reason to feel ashamed of Churchill, by all accounts a fine college.