Monckton's testimony to Congress debunked some more

I detailed a couple of the serious factual errors in Monckton's testimony to Congress back in May. Now John Abraham and others have organised a comprehensive rebuttal to Monckton, with corrections to Monckton's many errors from 21 climate scientists. Leo Hickman summarises in this story in the Guardian.

More like this

A summary by John Abraham of his thorough demolition of Monckton was published last month in the Guardian, along with commentary by George Monbiot. Now Monckton has responded with 446 questions for Abraham. Just to be clear here, "446 questions" is not hyperbole for "lots of questions". There are…
Monckton's response to Abraham has drawn the attention of bloggers everywhere. George Monbiot finds it "magnificently bonkers". Gareth Renowden examines Monckton's claim to have a science background. Eli Rabett is collecting limericks. Richard Littlemore believes if they look at Abraham's…
After The House of Lords wrote to Monckton telling him that he should not claim to be a member, Monckton kept doing it. So now The House of Lords has written an open letter to Monckton: My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you…
John P Abraham has taken the time to go through one of Christopher Monckton's talks and check whether the references that Monckton cites say what Monckton claims they do. Of course, as anyone who has checked Monckton's work can discover, they don't. But Abrahams has gone the extra mile and…

And there's no Latin. It must be crook.

Leo Hickman of the Guardian posted a response sent to him by Monckton.

In a lengthy letter to Congress some months ago, in which I addressed questions from Congressmen about my testimony before the global warming committee, I had already refuted in detail the points now belatedly raised again by the scientists who have written to Congress. The scientists were unaware of my letter to Congress because they did not have the good sense or courtesy to contact me - or even to contact the vast majority of the scientists whose conclusions I had cited - before circulating to friendly news media their prolix, turgid, repetitive, erroneous and inadequate response to my testimony. From their calculatedly furtive approach, it is legitimate to infer that their exercise was motivated more by politics than by science. One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

He just refuses to wake up and smell the coffee.

JBowers.

Your posts on the Guardian's site are commendable. Two thumbs up.

It's always a fraught exercise locking horns with scientific illiterates. All the more so when, in their Dunning-Kruger delusions, they believe that they actually have a grasp of the basics. The character below is a typical example - I'm temporarily over teaching chemistry to imbeciles, but perhaps someone else might enlighten the numpty:

ChilliKwok
21 September 2010 10:46PM

Has anyone here actually tried reading the supposed rebuttals?

I have - and many of the objections are very weak and woolley.

Take page 11 on ocean accidification for instance:

Ken Caldeira accepts Monkton's point that there's 70 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere but he says the problem is that any additional CO2 dissolving creates H+ ions which kill the carbonate ions essential for shell formation.

Two problems with that:

Firstly, in our alkali OH- rich oceans - the most likely reaction for new born H+ ion is H+ + OH- = H2O. So it's incorrect to give the impression that every CO2 molecule dissolved will destroy a carbonate ion.

Secondly, recent Woods Hole research seemed to show alot of shell forming critters react positively to CO2 levels many times higher than current levels:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters…

Maybe the next guy has a more substantial rebuttal....

Nope. Pieter Tans starts with a straw man: He says 80% of man-made CO2 will dissolve in 1000 years. Monckton claims 30% in *100* years. I don't see disagrement here. So Tan's point is...?

Yeah, Ken Caldeira doesn't understand simple hydronium reactions. Woods Hole have shown that carbonic acid is good for building carbonate shells. And Monckton knows better than the world's experts in physics, biology, and chemistry.

As if...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

Bernard J,

You can read the Woods Hole Inst. press release here:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

D-K victin says:

"recent Woods Hole research seemed to show of shell forming critters"

From the WHOI press release:

"...Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creaturesâsuch as crabs, shrimp and lobstersâunexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."

Also of note:

" âWe know that nutrients can be very important,â she says. âWe have found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitiveâ to CO2. âIn this study, the organisms were well fed and we didnât constrain the nutrient levels."

They also apparently did not take the impact of warming oceans into account.

They conclude by saying:

âThe bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.â

Tony and his band of merry inmates continue to spin/distort the science to fit their ideology.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

J Bowers @3,

Quite predictable rant from Munchkin, also quite the adhominem attack on some of the (unnamed) scientists.

So when is someone going to finally prosecute him for his very real crimes?

PS: Tks for taking the "skeptics" to task at The Guardian.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

Does anyone know what is up with RC? They have been offline for quite some time now...

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

OK, I'll go away now. RC is up again.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

What a delight to see this great take down of Monckton. Alas, as others have noted, it will have no educative effect on Monckton (as his entirely predictable response demonstrates) and may not have much effect on those who are driven primarily by ideology and not science. How sad to think that people will actually buy into Monckton's juvenile whinge, believing that this who's who of earth and atmospheric sciences represents nothing more than a bunch of clowns.

Charles, no doubt several will claim Monckton is right BECAUSE these scientists responded...

It's a difficult proposition for the scientists - clearly people who believe what Monckton has to say lack the scientific background to critically assess his drivel, which means that they are just as unable to appreciate the scientific explanations of why he's completely wrong.

Faith in Monckton can't be dented by mere appeal to reality.

> Charles, no doubt several will claim Monckton is right BECAUSE these scientists responded...

Indeed.

You can teach a Lord he oughtta, but you can't make him think.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Sep 2010 #permalink

> no doubt several will claim Monckton is right BECAUSE these scientists responded...

Oh, no, we're not going to get Brian back again, are we???

A bit OT but I notice that jo nova is advertsing on her site a one day climate conference in Sydney on the 1st of October. Its being put on for free by our old friends the Heartland Institute and the speakers are the usual suspects.

Seeing its free perhaps some fellow deltoids might be interested enough to pop in and have a look, they may even perhaps have free sandwiches or at least free tea and coffee so the time won't be totally wasted and it would be useful to see if there are any new talking points or pointless memes emerging from the dispersal agents of the denialsphere.

Here's a thought for those deltoider's who might attend we could have a lip sync contest i.e. each time a speaker gets up one of us would put on a blind fold and then attempt to say exactly what the speaker will say but half a second or two ahead. This is based on how deniers say the same thing over and over again.

#4: Textbook ad hominem attack by Monckton, peppered with more adolescently venomous language than you could shake a hockey stick at. Whilst Monckton has established his lack of character time and time again, it still induces a vague kind of sadness to see someone continously embarassing themselves this publicly. Strange to see someone who in Europe would be, and in fact is, relegated to the political sidelines, elevated to such lofty acknowledgement across the Pond.

So how long before Monckton threatens libel on these horrible scientists for daring to contradict his opinion?

Getting onto that man's litigation to-do list is likely to become a prestigious kind of science honour roll.

Only in the same way as "You've won a valuable prize! Just call this number to claim...!" is a lucky win...

Should Lord Munchkin be the one who is being attacked for giving testimony to the US Congress? Surely the real guilty parties are those who invited/requested him to testify, knowing that he has no qualifications in the subject. Were they the usual suspects, i.e., Barton and Inhofe?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 22 Sep 2010 #permalink

In a lengthy letter to Congress some months ago, in which I addressed questions from Congressmen about my testimony before the global warming committee, I had already refuted in detail the points now belatedly raised again by the scientists who have written to Congress.

And that letter can be found...where? Did Monckton provide a citation?

> And that letter can be found...where? Did Monckton provide a citation?

> Posted by: Raging Bee

Give him a chance, he's writing it now. He just has to Monckton Magic it to have a date of last month.

It involves pulling his chest hair off, if I recall correctly...

"...a third admits to suffering a mental disability..."

I was mildly insulted by this 'til I found he was referring to Bickmore's ADHD. Then I just laughed at him.

...and it's also breathtakingly un-self aware coming from a pop-eyed sufferer of Grave's disease and its attendant symtoms of dementia.

I sincerely (yes, really) fear that Monckton may be a very ill man. Normally I would not do this, but since Monckton has elected to repeatedly attack the scientists and now belittle one of them suffering from Inattentive Type Attention Deficit Disorder, here goes:

The following is, of course, assuming of course that Monckton does in fact have Grave's disease.....

From Wikipedia:
"Reported symptoms [associated with Grave's disease] vary from mild to severe aspects of anxiety or depression, and may include psychotic and behavioural disturbances:

Varying degrees of anxiety,[19] such as a very active mind,[3]irritability,[19] hyperactivity, agitation, restlessness, nervousness, distractible overactivity[29] and panic attacks.[30] In addition patients may experience vivid dreams and, occasionally, nightmares.

Depressive features of mental impairment, memory lapses,[19] diminished attention span,[19] fluctuating depression[29][31]

Emotional lability and in some patients, the emotional pattern is that of hypomania,[32] or pathologic well-being (euphoria) or the hyperactivity may produce a state of exhaustion, and profound fatigue or asthenia chiefly characterizes the picture.[3]

Erratic behaviour may include intermittent rage disorder, mild attention deficit disorder[33] and some patients become hyperirritable and combative, which can precipitate accidents or even assaultive behaviour.[3]

In more extreme cases features of psychosis,[34] with delusions of persecution or delusions of reference.[35] pressure of speech Rarely, patients develop visual or auditory hallucinations or a frank psychosis,[3] and may appear schizophrenic, lose touch with reality and become delirious,[12] or hallucinate.[29] Such psychotic symptoms may not completely clear up after the hyperthyroidism has been treated.[3] Paranoia and paranoid-hallucionary psychosis in hyperthyroidism usually have a manick disposition and it is therefore often not clear if the patient is experiencing a paranoid psychosis with depressive streaks, or a depression that has paranoid streaks.[12]"

Those symptoms might explain a lot about Monckton.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 22 Sep 2010 #permalink

But there's really nothing special about Monckton.
If it weren't him it'd be someone else, there are plenty out there making the same sorts of claims.

What needs explaining is why someone _listens_ to him.

@MapleLeaf

That's it, you've done it. You've violated doctor-patient confidentiality and are interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere.

Dave H. You can count yourself lucky that I'm in a very benign mood. Otherwise you would owe me a new computer screen which has now been mostly irreparably damaged by a high-powered spray of tea. You have been warned. I am also considering a libel suit, on account that my current suit now has tea stains on it which I will be unable to remove.

...and it's also breathtakingly un-self aware coming from a pop-eyed sufferer of Grave's disease and its attendant symtoms of dementia.

2 X Wrong /= Right!

Holy armchair diagnosis, JasonW! I think you might be onto something there. From the Wiki page on Graves Disease, looks like our poor, dear Viscount is actually suffering from late-stage psychosis:

"# Erratic behaviour may include intermittent rage disorder, mild attention deficit disorder[33] and some patients become hyperirritable and combative, which can precipitate accidents or even assaultive behaviour.[3]
# In more extreme cases features of psychosis,[34] with delusions of persecution or delusions of reference.[35] pressure of speech Rarely, patients develop visual or auditory hallucinations or a frank psychosis,[3] and may appear schizophrenic, lose touch with reality and become delirious,[12] or hallucinate.[29] Such psychotic symptoms may not completely clear up after the hyperthyroidism has been treated.[3] Paranoia and paranoid-hallucionary psychosis in hyperthyroidism usually have a manick disposition and it is therefore often not clear if the patient is experiencing a paranoid psychosis with depressive streaks, or a depression that has paranoid streaks.[12]"

I wouldn't let him off so lightly.

Just because we might have any one of dozens of conditions that make us volatile or inattentive or depressed, doesn't give us the right to be irritable or rude or miserable in a way that adversely affects other people. And anyone in this situation who does step over the line now and then is usually quick to withdraw or apologise for unsociable behaviour.

But, always, always, always, we come back to Hank's point.

'What needs explaining is why someone listens to him.' Why?!??!?

>*'What needs explaining is why someone listens to him.' Why?!??!?*

He tells them what they want to hear. A message that reinforces their prejudice, and preserves their ideology.

That their ideology requires untruths and complete distortions to sustain it highlights the growing fragility of that ideology.

Just like Communists.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 22 Sep 2010 #permalink

Presumably the response was "prolix, turgid, repetitive, erroneous and inadequate" because they were trying to follow Monckton's example.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 22 Sep 2010 #permalink

True and ironic.

@35 was response to Vince @33 but fits with 34!

It is interesting that Monckton's email to Hickman, as reported by Hickman and referred to by J. Bowers @3, has been "removed by a moderator" from the Guardian comments (see Hickman's comment dated 21 September 2010 8:23PM).

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 22 Sep 2010 #permalink

Dirk: that's because it is now embedded in the article itself.

> >..and it's also breathtakingly un-self aware coming from a pop-eyed sufferer of Grave's disease and its attendant symtoms of dementia.

> 2 X Wrong /= Right!

> Posted by: BenSix

Except that this isn't the same. It isn't calling Monckton's insane dribblings insane because he's got *medical* mental problems like Monkey's attack. That is the 1x wrong. This is saying that Monkey's attack by stating "he has medical mental problems" is breathtakingly unaware of himself who suffers likewise, therefore BY HIS OWN ARGUMENT, Monkey has just slapped his own arguments down.

That statement says nothing about how Monkey is a nutcase whose brain is being damaged by Graves Disease, therefore we shouldn't listen to him. *That* WOULD be the 2x wrong that doesn't make a right. It would also be the same ad hom attacks that make denialists so easy to spot (because they make ad hom attacks and complain about ad hominem against them when the argument was NOT an ad hominem one), hence the "2xwrong".

But this is merely saying that complaining about someone else who has "mental problems" because of ADHD is rather two-faced coming from someone with Graves Disease.

This is NOT an ad-hom. And you don't seem to understand the meaning of the term and misapply it.

Conclusions are to be drawn from this...

Marco: well spotted. However, less than 50% of the original letter is in the article.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

I'm not claiming it's an ad hom, Wow, I'm saying that calling him "pop-eyed" is no more sensitive. Maybe I'm being a prig but diseases just don't crack me up.

> I'm not claiming it's an ad hom, Wow,

Well it is a clearly reasonable inference from what words you DID use.

Monkey's words were an ad hom and chek's were not, you did still equate to them.

> I'm saying that calling him "pop-eyed" is no more sensitive.

That's not wrong, though. And that's not all you quoted, so why the extra stuff if "all you're saying is..." pop-eyed is insensitive?

Additionally, since you used 2x wrong, this would allude to it being the same sort of wrong, which insensitivity is NOT. You can be insensitive and STILL listen to someone. Monkey, that swivel-eyed tinkers' damn, wants people not to listen to someone and being "insensitive" too. That's a 2x wrong right there, if you're going to pronounce insensitivity as an equivalent wrong.

21 Raging Bee,

I thought those wingnuts are always big on "patriotism"? What, they couldn't find an American "sceptic" good enough so they had to get a limey in?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

"I'm saying that calling him "pop-eyed" is no more sensitive."

But it is factual and, as the saying goes, in your face even if the sensitivity of drawing attention to it is debatable in polite society.

Besides, legend o' t'internet has it that the eye thing is due to a curse and that for every lie told, they bug out just a little bit more. Which is unfortunate given the man is a non-stop liar and blowhard. Or that could of course just be a piece of fun internet fluff.

In the good visocunt's case, I really don't consider him or his insane rabble rousing of teabagging thugs or groundless accusations of fraud and conspiracy against the reputations of ordinary working scientists for his own personal political and financial gain a worthy recipient for the normal rules of engagement in polite society.

If you act like a joke, you can't effectively complain when you become a joke, and social limits no longer apply.
Or in plainer terms, what goes around comes around.

PS the statement chek made was not meant to crack you up.

PPS when you say:

> but diseases just don't crack me up.

How does that square with this statement:

> Then I just laughed at him.

?

You're overcomplicating, Wow.

Monkey's words were an ad hom and chek's were not, you did still equate to them.

Well, yes: both were exploiting an opponent's disability. Unless there's a darned good reason - a bomb disposal technician who's prone to fits, perhaps - I reckon that's a little cheap.

...the statement chek made was not meant to crack you up.

Perhaps, but it was deriding Monckers on the basis of his Graves disease. Me, I don't think that's quite fair: were I more po-faced I'd tag it as "disablist" or something. Not that I want to rag on chek too much - it was probably a throwaway comment.

How does that square with this statement:

Then I just laughed at him.

I was amused by his foolishness. Not his disease.

> You're overcomplicating, Wow.

Or being pedantic. Or petty. Or concerned for accuracy.

Depends on what you think.

chek's point wasn't anything like Monkey's and it wasn't wrong unless you're going to count "insensitive" wrong.

> I was amused by his foolishness. Not his disease.

But Monkey was going on about Bickmore's "disease" and you laughed at that.

Why is it when you *think* chek is going on about Monkey's disease you don't want to laugh then?

> Well, yes: both were exploiting an opponent's disability.

Nope.

Monkey was exploiting an opponents disability.

Chek was pointing out the level of self deception required for Monkey to do it. He wasn't exploiting Monkey's medical insanity, unless you're going to tone troll and equate "explain" with "exploit".

chek's point wasn't anything like Monkey's and it wasn't wrong unless you're going to count "insensitive" wrong.

If you see nothing wrong with taking the proverbial piss out of another on the basis of their disability then - well - there's no point in continuing.

But Monkey was going on about Bickmore's "disease" and you laughed at that.

No, I laughed at the absurdity of his insinuation that ADHD could render one's arguments invalid. Goodness, this has gotten meta.

> If you see nothing wrong with taking the proverbial piss out of another on the basis of their disability then ...

Why did you laugh at Monkton when he did it? There are two faces of yours on display here. And you're getting pissy because I'm pointing them out.

And, no I don't see any problem with taking the piss out of someone when they say "Ignore him, don't listen to him because he has a mental problem" when they have a much worse one because by MAKING that claim, the claimant has lost any high ground against it being used against them.

But if you don't see any problem with someone exploiting someone else's medically diagnosable problems to their benefit and to get people to ignore their statements, then I guess there's no point in continuing.

> No, I laughed at the absurdity of his insinuation that ADHD could render one's arguments invalid.

And ADHD is a mental disability, so it's only *disease* that you won't make fun of. Behavioural problems are A-OK in your book?

And, to pull it back from the outback where you're trying to lead it:

a) Chek's post was NOT equally wrong

b) Chek's post was NOT exploiting Monkey's insanity

c) Chek's post was NOT making fun of Monkey's disease

d) Chek's post was pointing out how blind to himself Monkey is to ignore Graves Disease (by the way, did you know that Monkey has CURED Graves Disease? That's what Monkey says, so how could Chek's post be getting on about Monkey's disease when it's been cured..?)

Why did you laugh at Monkton when he did it?

Because, as I've said, thinking ADHD makes someone intellectually inept is such an idiotic notion that one cannot help but laugh. Wish I had, though.

I don't see any problem with taking the piss out of someone when they say "Ignore him, don't listen to him because he has a mental problem" when they have a much worse one because by MAKING that claim, the claimant has lost any high ground against it being used against them.

The piss-taking should be on the basis of their foolishness, not the fact that they're "pop-eyed". Would you think it right to describe, say, a cancer patient as "baldie"? Besides, dementia needn't arise from Graves disease. If you/chek are trying to "explain" Monckton's behaviour, rather than demean him, you could do better research.

But if you don't see any problem with someone exploiting someone else's medically diagnosable problems to their benefit and to get people to ignore their statements, then I guess there's no point in continuing.

I do see a problem with it. That's why I said I felt "insulted" at 23.

And ADHD is a mental disability, so it's only disease that you won't make fun of. Behavioural problems are A-OK in your book?

No offence, man, but this is denser than a vat of porridge. For the third time, I was laughing at how dumb Monckton was being, not at his searing wit.

I thought those wingnuts are always big on "patriotism"? What, they couldn't find an American "sceptic" good enough so they had to get a limey in?

They're bringing in gay-bashers and child-witch-hunters from Africa because our own churches are too liberal; so importing a British fake-nobleman with fake credentials isn't that much of a stretch. (And yes, only true patriots of the radical right are allowed to bring in foreign ideas; when the rest of us do it, we're commie internationalists trying to undermine American specialness.)

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

> Because, as I've said, thinking ADHD makes someone intellectually inept is such an idiotic notion that one cannot help but laugh.

So laugh at chek then. Why didn't you?

Interesting semantics discussion going on people, to which I have added a reply but which is held up because I may have stupidly used the 'f' word (as in Monckton's baseless accusations of).

For the record though it will go on to say I have no problem in demeaning Lord Bugeyes-Climateknob given his ludicrous and insulting history of behaviour to others in his pursuit of personal financial and political gain.

I think the whole argument can be brought up short by saying that since Monckton certainly doesn't pull any punches in denigrating someone's else mental disability, appearance, mode of speech etc., he or any of his fanboys and girls should bloody well shut up when his appearance, disability etc. is made fun of.

Although having said that, I am of the opinion that one shouldn't stoop to his level of hate-mongering discourse.

JasonW, aye, but it IS an opinion. Just like there is an opinion that you shouldn't eat meat. There are plenty of reasons not to do so (as there is in the case of stooping to within a few flights of stairs of Monkey's level), but "wrong" is not the correct idiom.

JasonW,

Jeez, what the heck did I start? I think your post @55 sums it up, and in a way, that was one reason for my original post that got all this started.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

I think the whole argument can be brought up short by saying that since Monckton certainly doesn't pull any punches in denigrating someone's else mental disability, appearance, mode of speech etc., he or any of his fanboys and girls should bloody well shut up when his appearance, disability etc. is made fun of.

The issue is not whether Monckton deserves it, but whether other sufferers of the disease are in a position to witness it.

A gay man can be extremely racist or bigoted. This does not mean that one should fling homophobic remarks at him in the company of other gay men, on the basis that he's lost the right to complain.

> The issue is not whether Monckton deserves it, but whether other sufferers of the disease are in a position to witness it.

Sorry, you're going to have to explain why that has ANYTHING to do with this, unless you're going to play the "appropriation of someone else's offence" card.

As to your analogy, it frankly fails.

More closely, it's like someone who is heavily into BSDM complaining about people who kiss with tongues.

It's kind of appropriate to point out the gimp mask they're wearing at that point.

Sorry, you're going to have to explain why that has ANYTHING to do with this, unless you're going to play the "appropriation of someone else's offence" card.

I'm not playing any cards. To me, it's fairly evident that if you draw attention in a pejorative fashion to someone's race, sexuality, disability or illness then it's not going to cause offence purely to that person, but to people with similar traits.

This is the reason, by and large, that people object to using discriminatory language, and why this objection is consistent regardless of the offended target. It has little if anything to do with whether or not the target has a right to complain. That is what my analogy drew attention to.

Anyway, my apologies for prolonging an argument that was already past its shelf-life.

It may be clear to you because you want Monkey to be left alone to spout those things that bring other people with ADHD pain and suffering.

It would also be clear to someone who wants to say "you can't say that, SOMEONE ELSE may be offended!", but that's just liberal PC BS.

You a lib, bud? Are ya?

> This is the reason, by and large, that people object to using discriminatory language,

...but not when Lord Munchink, swivel-eyed maniac that he is, does it...

This:

It may be clear to you because you want Monkey to be left alone to spout those things that bring other people with ADHD pain and suffering.

Is too bizarre to even begin to understand.

As for the rest, different strokes Wow. Carry on however you want. I joined the discussion to offer another point of view on the matter, not to get into a pissing contest.

So you weren't all that sorry about extending a discussion that should have ended a long time ago, Bud..?

Just in case it's been forgotten, a reminder of a suggested criteria scientists should have to fulfill before they're allowed to do their thing. Probably the biggest load of anti-science garbage I ever read. It's wordy, it's long, it's hosted by SPPI...

SPPI Blog: What is science without religion?

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
[...]
Accordingly, science can never prove wrong the proposition that it was Almighty God who, directly or indirectly, caused the Big Bang to occur and thus brought our universe into existence.
[...]
Can science function without religion? Science would like to think so. And yet ⦠and yet.

Put down that coffee and strap your jaw to your face...

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions â Christianity outstanding among them â that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

Yes, I know you're rubbing your eyes in disbelief. Stunning.

> Yes, I know you're rubbing your eyes in disbelief. Stunning.

Good God! ;-) What a crock! But I'm sure it plays well in large part of America.

I guess Brent will be all over this pointing out that religious beliefs are not valid in science? ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

I guess Brent will be all over this pointing out that religious beliefs are not valid in science? ;-)

Actually, one ardent sceptic disowned Monckton completely yesterday after reading it. Of course, another tried to make out that it was no big deal ;) I don't think it gets enough airtime.

> Actually, one ardent sceptic disowned Monckton completely yesterday after reading it.

One down, hundreds of thousands to go ;-)

Maybe it should receive much wider airplay. I think at the very least Tim should do a post on it. And perhaps a campaign of asking fellow skeptic travellers to go on record agreeing with it could be organised?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Sep 2010 #permalink

And perhaps a campaign of asking fellow skeptic travellers to go on record agreeing with it could be organised?

Indeed. I especially wonder what Jo Nova and Anthony Watts think of it.

It needs airtime on the AirVent as well - only recently there was an article by one author negatively comparing environmentalism to religion (yes, that old, boring chestnut) - with the clear aim of portraying environmentalists, and by extension, so-called AGW proponents in an irrational light. And now this! :)

Sometimes I wonder whether the Enlightenment has passed these people by.