Gareth Renowden has uncovered the true story of Monckton's visit to Australia. (Note to Tim Blair: I'm using "true story" ironically.)
Tim Blair, who used to call fellow journalist Margo Kingston "the Margoyle", has gone all politically correct on us. He's outraged, outraged I tell you that the Age published a photo that emphasised Monckton's protruding eyes, a symptom of Graves' disease. How dare they mock his appearance? Why can't they treat him like the SMH treated Adam Hills and crop the evidence of his complaint out of the photo? I hope my photo of Monckton will be to Blair's satisfaction.
I expect Blair will also be outraged by the cartoon accompanying this Mike Carlton column, which emphasises Monckton's extremely long nose, a symptom of Pinocchio's disease. Carlton's column is worth a read, since he points out that Monckton has adopted the Larouchites nutty notions about a world government and DDT.
- Log in to post comments
Somebody call the WAAAAAMBULANCE. Blair and Bolt regularly indulge in posting unflattering pics of academics and other cardigan-wearers, inviting their flying monkeys to fling faeces at will.
They can dish it out...
And it has a concise summary of a lot of Monckton's lies and bull. He also points out:
The title "Discount" Monckton seems very appropriate.
Carlton also points out:
Those Sydney private schools must be proud of their achievements in science education.
As I pointed out over at LP Chris
lots of fun, to read that pinocchio article.
may i present to you: Lord Monckton, leader of the "sceptics2 movement against climate change!
Ahh, so it isn't just a coincidence that he looks like Marty Feldman.
Tim, it looks like you might need to put up some postings in The War on Science for the Sydney Morning Herald, courtesy of Sheehan and the Devine Miss M. Or perhaps their science denialism is too obvious to all but the delusional.
Tim, the lower part of his face isn't quite enough. I pine for those oogly-googly eyes.
For anyone who wants to listen, here's the original "Marty Feldman Eyes" (which I suppose I should mention for the benefit of the short in the tooth is an @ 1980 parody of the hit "Bette Davis Eyes").
BTW, just what is it about Blighty that makes it capable of producing a creature like Monckton? I honestly don't think any of the former colonies would be up to the task.
Like Feldman, Monckton is being paid while being funny.
Unlike Feldman, Monckton isn't being paid to be funny.
Steve Bloom:
> ...just what is it about Blighty that makes it capable of producing a creature like Monckton?
Public school system. Regular hot crumpets shoved between the buttocks can do odd things to a young chap's mind. What! What!
Funny reading all the comments on Tim Blair.
When I first started reading his blogs on global warming/climate change, I quite genuinely thought he was being satirical towards the denyosphere and got a great laugh out of many of them, and even made a couple of published comments about how funny it was that some regular blog posters were taking them as supportive of the denialist view. Because of course, how could someone make such comments as Tim Blair does on the topic, and not be taking the piss?
It wasn't until later that I realised he actually was supporting the denialist view, and they weren't satirical! Wow. How horribly embarrassing.
I just couldn't get over this comment at Timmeh"s:
What?
As long as the memory remains of cheeks burning with shame, the Earth will never warm!
10 Mike,
Poe's Law in action!
Hard to separate parody from truth, so let the spoof wars begin. Eli has an interesting post (translated) on 'concern trolls', which explains that phenomenon in detail.
I would be very suspicious about a blogger who made [cheap punning humour](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegra…) out of the suffering of a burns victim.
How dare you show a picture of Monckton with that tie knot! That's not a windsor. Are you suggesting he can't put a tie on properly? Why are your attacks so personal?
Calling Monckton a mathematician is like calling the underpants bomber a chemist. In both cases the net result is a bit of a fizzle.
Not a windsor knot in the old necktie, eh?
I can think of another "necktie" knot....
typical - warmists playing the man.
"Calling Monckton a mathematician is like calling the underpants bomber a chemist. "
I don't recall the underpants bomber creating a mathematical puzzle that sold 500,000 copies because mathematicians wanted to crack it to get the $1 million prize money.
you guys get more pathetic every day.
We're just having a spot of fun, janama. Monckton is so utterly crazy, the jokes write themselves. If he'd ever had a serious point about anything related to climate, we'd discuss it, but sadly he hasn't.
In the meantime, he's curing HIV and the common cold. It's clear that climate sceptics are quite bad at realising cranks among their own, but you'd think even they'd think twice about a guy making claims like that.
Are you sure that picture is really Monckton?
He looks -- fat.
Calling Monckton a mathematician is like calling George Bush a jackass.
Sure he acts out the role, but true jackasses can tell the difference and would be insulted by the comparison.
Having met Monckton at the Newcastle leg of his tour I'm sure he can withstand the peurility being expressed here and elsewhere in the 'superior' pro-AGW forums; however, the comparison with the underpants bomber is a bit baseline.
Cohenite ... considering the vacuity of his presentation and the large sums he was charging and getting, I feel sure he can cop the brickbats.
The comparison with the underpants bomber is indeed apt, because both of them are clearly unhinged and seek to harm the legitimate interests of others. Monckton aims at more damage than underpants man though.
janama ... Rubik's cube which has outsold Monckton's puzzle by a huge amount was invented by an interior designer. The mathemematics of the Rubik's cube are very complex but I would not suggest that we appoint interior designers to advise us on climate change (No disrespect to interior designers intended).
Is Monckton that short of cash that he signs on with the LaRouchies? Did Scrotum get paid this week?
Yes, I agree. It reminds me of the purile attitude expressed in the pro-heliocentrism forums. All they do is come up with sarcastic and snide remarks about people with alternative theories. Leftist intellectual snobs.
janama - or to put it another way, he had to offer a prize of a million bucks to get people to buy his puzzle. It's barely one step up from a "scratchie".
Janama, Monckton was so confident that his puzzle was un-solveable, he put up a $1Million prize, half of it funded by his own house, and he lost his shirt.
...You are betting the future of our civilisation on the 'smarts' of an amateur mathematician who lost a $1million bet on the "unsolveability" of his own puzzle...
...prepare for ridicule at 100 paces!
>*Having met Monckton at the Newcastle leg of his tour I'm sure he can withstand the peurility being expressed here and elsewhere*
Is that because you gave Monckton some succor? Did you fawn Anthony? Let me guess, you feel like you want to start name dropping?
How sad. Did you think we'd be impressed?
Well anon, I was chatting with the good Lord, and over some some post lecture Pimms and sandwiches I said, "Lord Christopher Monckton, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, how wonderful to see you; do you mind if I address you as Lord Monckton or does ettiquette demand that I engage you as Viscount Monckton?" And do you know, with affable condescension, Lord Monckton replied: "What a lark."
Great times.
Who is using conites name to take the piss? Very funny though!
Was David Flint there too?
;)
That's ya Monckton audience for you - flawer and and fawner
Barney Google (with those goo-goo-googly eyes) has changed his name to Christopher Monckton? What a disappointment.
If you can withstand the puerility in Newcastle you can withstand it anywhere.
God bless you leftards. You're so damn feral and so damn sanctimonious at the same time. Here's a radical idea though, and it might cause your ears to bleed, actually address a specific point about AGW Monckton has made. Go on ya zombies, you can do it. Try harder.
Lord Haw-haw's made a point that hasn't been debunked??
Here's another radical idea: search the archives on this blog for "monckton", then go over to Realclimate and search "monckton", then go to deepclimate and search "monckton", then go to tamino.wordpress.com and search "monckton", then go to skepticalscience and search "monckton", and then, just for a joke, GOOGLE "monckton".
If you are still impressed with Monckton after all that, check yourself in for rehab.
Doug:
Another person with a reading disability.
Wait. He's actually made a point?
Hey, thanks, whoever gave this great link:
I love this paragraph:
"Monckton was a science adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
Wrong. Thatcher has a science degree herself; she hardly needed a science adviser who didn't. Monckton was hired in 1982 as a low-level drone in her policy unit, working on public housing and the like."
There are children represented on both sides it seems. It's unfortunate that people descend to name calling and commentary on appearance. One more reason to suspect the whole 'debate'.
19 janama,
It (Eternity) was solved within a year. What was your point?
25 MikeH,
Interior designer? You should check your sources.
Or are you having us on?
29 Mercurius,
500,000 * £35 = £17.5 M gross (UK price). Think about it.
How do you think 'Who Wants To Be a Millionaire' works?
So far I have not read any scientific scientific rebuff on what Monkton asserts. The above commentary is an example. Perhaps the collective silence on the science indicates he Monkton is correct when he says;
"To the environmentalists I shall say that it is important not to waste time, money and effort on trying to solve non-problems like âglobal warmingâ, when the time, money and effort could and should be better spent on solving real problems, such as deforestation, overfishing, particulate pollution in south-east Asia, and the encroachment of humankind on to the fragile and shrinking habitats of our fellow-creatures.
Telling the truth is often unpopular, and I realize that those who are making money out of the Great Lie that is the âglobal warmingâ scam, and those who have too readily believed it because it is socially convenient or politically expedient, may be upset by what I shall say.
But my intention is not to give offence, nor deliberately to attract criticism for the sake of making a sensation. My aim is merely to tell the truth, and to explain how interested listeners can verify the truth for themselves. I usually start my talks by saying, âDo not believe a word I say. Science is not a belief system, but a process of rigorous enquiry and observation and measurement and testing, testing, testing. Everything I say comes from the data or the learned journals of science, mathematics, and economics. If you are interested, check for yourselves.â
If Monckton wasn't funded by Exxon I may just listen to what he has to say.
[Dick J](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/monckton_in_australia.php#comme…).
Some small corrections.
"My aim is merely to tell the truth people what the want to hear, and to explain how interested listeners can verify the truth reinforce their subjective ideologies for themselves. I usually start my talks by saying, âDo not believe a word I say[, because my words are not based in science]. Science is not a belief system, but a process of rigorous enquiry and observation and measurement and testing, testing, testing. Everything I say comes from [my misrepresentation of, and lying about] the data or the learned journals of science, mathematics, and economics. If you are interested, check for yourselves. [Search blogs such as Deltoid, Open Mind, RealClimate, Deep Climate, Climate Progress, Rabbet Run, Gristmill and Greenfyre's, using the term 'Monckton', and you will find that this is so]."
There, that's better.
Bernard JU, Thanks for making my point.
It seems for many alarmists that "the great moral issue of our time" is not worth debate and "the truth" is the first casualty as you clearly demonstrate.
To suggest one searches a blog for the truth is inane. Now let me see what about I type in;- Martin Bryant- conspiracy theory. Bloody hell, he was set up!
Richard Davidson I don't know if Monkton is funded by Exxon.However I suspect its an internet untruth propogated by people which can't argue the science. Prove me wrong if you wish.
Consider this also; Is being funded privatley any different to being funded by Government, WWF, Greenpeace etc?
>*Is being funded privatley any different to being funded by Government, WWF, Greenpeace etc?*
Yep, show me the budget of priviate corporations to research pure science? Show me the budget for private corporations to study anything that has less than a significant chance of increasing profits in the short term? The proporiton of these metrics compared to that for Non-profit funded (govt funded) science will show you the difference.
Also compare the incentives for companies like James Hardy to sit on their results into the dangers of asbestos. Or compare the tobacco companies analysis of the risk of tobaccos with those of disinterest researchers.
The simple answer is there is a big difference.
Dick J:
Dick J:
Tell us what type of people are debating global warming climate science. Heard of any climate scientists debating it with each other lately? They stopped debating with each other about global warming years ago. What does that tell you? Yeah, yeah, it's a global conspiracy.
I tell you what, I'm feeling generous today so if you want to state just one of Monckton's assertions then I'll find the scientific rebuff for you.
"We're just having a spot of fun, janama. Monckton is so utterly crazy, the jokes write themselves. If he'd ever had a serious point about anything related to climate, we'd discuss it, but sadly he hasn't."
You lot haven't discussed anything remotely approaching science yet - just ask Phil Jones
Dick J asked:
Most assuredly ... Governments are notionally respresentatives of the public interest. WWF & Greenpeace have biodiversity and environmental interests (both affrimed as explicit components of public policy nationally and internationally) as their objects of concern.
This is a difference in quality from organisations that seek to profit from free use of the biosphere as a dumping ground for industrial effluent or have an interest in the monetary value of the precursor feedstock.
Pretty obvious really. Surprised you asked.
I always thought that the Discount Viscount had already been dubbed Baron Monckhausen. His following is that great reservoir of arrogant ignorance, stupidity and personal viciousness we know as 'the Right'. These are the types identified in psychological research as so moronic as to have absolutely no idea just how stupid they are, lacking the intellectual equipment to make such judgements, and hence they habitually over-estimate their intelligence. They hate real scientists and those they suspect of being cleverer than they as 'smart-arses' or 'know-it-alls'. And as one other contributor noted, the fact that they all have a vote ensures our doom. Was it not Goethe who observed that there is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action. Add stupidity and that simple misanthropy that the Right holds in abundance, and you have the denialist lynch-mob, growing crazier and more hysterical by the day, as they are whipped into a frenzy by the hatemongering psychopaths of the Rightwing media sewer.
Mulga Mumblebrain,
It is unfortunate that we skeptics are so stupid. Otherwise we might have found the scientific literature more compelling, and might not have made methodological and mathematical errors when trying to validate the results (so far as the raw data is published). But I suppose that is to be expected from morons like me with and IQ below 180, and psychological problems that make me suspicious of things that are too complex for me to understand.
Steve@57
Knowing your limitations is the first step on the road to mitigating the constraints on your life that they impose. Well done.
Stop calling yourself a skeptic though. Not getting stuff and saying "No sir, I don't like it" just makes you like Mr Horse. A true skeptic knows exactly what it is that is problematic, and can demonstrate the flaws in reasoning (s)he identifies in ways that those from the field of knowledge in question can evaluate and respond to systematically.
Until you know something you are ignorant. Until you can apply it to specification or analysis of a problem, you are a moron, whatever you think your IQ is.
No discussion on the science? No refutation of what Moncton says. Why is that? Why do people on this blog simply point to links to Alarmist sites? No debating skills? No basic knowledge of the science?
I listened to Moncton's Melbourne speech and he comes over as calm, considered and intelligent. That's a lot more than is apparent with most commentates on here.
Does CO2 follow an increase in temperature or the reverse?
[Dick J](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/monckton_in_australia.php#comme…).
If you think that I "made" your point, then you missed mine entirely.
In [your opening sentences above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/monckton_in_australia.php#comme…) you say:
You are, without presenting any supporting evidence, criticising the lack of scientific argument on this blog. [My response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/monckton_in_australia.php#comme…) was to indicate to you that this blog, and many others, are scientific in most of their conduct, and certainly so in the elucidation of professional detail, Denialist trolls notwithstanding. These blogs each are frequented by competent scientists, who regularly provide direct reference to primary literature, and who also provide a synthesis of the corpus of scientific literature so that is accessible to the lay person.
That my point, and the very existence of the abundant deconstructions of Monckton's pseudoscientific jabberings, have both escaped you is damning evidence, in its own turn, of your own Denialist incompetence.
Continue your prating though, knave. It becomes your cause.
Bear trolled:
Because Monckton's talking points have been debunked here and everywhere with a shred of credibility a very long time ago and many times over. We know that trolls like you simply want us to endlessly revisit them here precisely so that you can pretend that the debate continues, when it doesn't. We aren't biting, though you can choose an open thread here if you like and try your luck.
Most of us can't be bothered repeating the steps of that inane dance with you.
Why?
Perhaps it is because you haven't actually followed the links that you so abhorr, and thus you have not found that they lead directly to a plethora of information and evidence from primary literature that soundly demolishes Monckton's nonsense.
However Monckton might present, it has noting to do with scientific fact. One ideologue's "calm, considered and intelligent" is, in Monckton's case, a thinking person's "practised, posing, charlatan". That you are not able to discern the difference is a reflection of the level of your ignorance, and not of the state of the science.
As to the "[n]o refutation of what Moncton says", there's no accounting for the stupidity of some people in the Denialist camp.
On the left hand side of this page is a column with a title, not far from the top, that says "Categories". One of these catgories is "[Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/)", which provides a nice start for scientific deconstruction of the rabid lunatic's nonsense.
And at the top of the page is a search engine that permits the pondering enquirer to search the entire site for postings on Monckton. Who'd 'a' thought?!
Apparently trivially basic research is beyond the likes of Dick J and Bear.
Does CO2 follow an increase in temperature or the reverse?
Is it really so hard to understand that these aren't 'zero-sum' phenomena?
Cue link to an "alarmist" website and to the primary literature on the subject linked from therein.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Bear falsely claims:
>*No discussion on the science? No refutation of what Monckton says. Why is that?*
Bear why do you say such things that are [demonstrably false](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/debunking-the-myth…)?
>*Does CO2 follow an increase in temperature or the reverse?*
Both. If temp rises CO2 rises, and if CO2 rises temps rise. Currently CO2 is forcing temps to rise.
Monckton's extremely long nose, a symptom of Pinocchio's disease
Nice ad hominem attack - I can see why you're in the top-30 science blogs!
Childish crap. A persons appearance should not be an issue. Are they less than people if they have a unique characteristic? Grow up.
Never mind:
Have you actually read Mike Carlton's column? There's a lot more in it than the Pinocchio cartoon that heads the article, i.e. a collection of Monckton's lies. Perhaps you're in denial about Monckton's pathological lying.
"...Monckton's extremely long nose, a symptom of Pinocchio's disease."
I laughed myself off my chair at this one. Classic. Very apt and funny.