Background Briefing on Monckton

So it was genuine apology for being caught. Glad that's clear now.

Precisely.

The so-called "unreserved" apology was also instantly qualified with a "but they do it"rant that ranged from Richard Glover's musings about deniers being tattooed - to GetUp.

I've not heard such an unreserved apology - with so many reservations.

He hates being questioned - goes on about free speech, but then takes Rupert Murray's "meet the climate sceptics" to the High Court.

"Monckton, stop telling porkies, House of Lords

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750

Of course, it's completely not at all like a fascisty sort of thing to do to call for show trials and imprisonment of certain sectors of society... The only thing I was shocked about was that Monckton's Loons didn't demand that the ABC reporters wear yellow stars when they attend their vaudeville performances (though the reporter probably cleared out before they could enforce that requirement).

Monckton makes clear how he plays to his repeat audience: "You can fool some of the people all the time" - clearly noting that his most rusted on lovers are fools.

And the usual response to any of his lunatic pronouncements actually being reported is "I was misquoted by the BBC/ABC/Al Gore!"

Just watching the Press Club thing now. He is still claiming that he is a climate scientist ("i've lectured at a faculty level").

He just did it again atthe Press Club.

Some guy asked him directly about the letter.

He did the trick with the passport (which DOES NOT say he is a "member of the House of Lords") and basically said he'sgoing to keep doing it so 'get used to it'.

He then went on a hissy fit about answering drivelling ad hominem questions.

Someone else just asked him and he said they haven't put his reply on their web site and the question is impertinent.

Ahhh ... The Press Club "Debate"..I can't watch any more...

There are at least two misrepresentations per every one comment. I turned off when, in explaining his own number for climate sensitivity, Monckton said something like,"we've already almost seen a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the temperature has only increased by 1 degree..."

Just watched the Press Club "debate". It would be easier to pick an answer of his that wasn't a lie.

In an hour he claimed that

1. he had been peer-reviewed.
2. the debate should be civilised, but my opponents are communists who want to bring down the West
3. the CET is a good proxy for global temperatures
4. he was *still* a member of the House Of Lords.
5. unnamed scientists are under investigation for criminal fra*d (he really likes this one)
6. there is no consensus, unless it's to do with the number of papers that say climate sensitivity is low.

His opening address has so many lies I can't list them all here. You'd need to get the video and go through them one by one.

His hostility towards anyone who touched upon subjects he was clearly edgy about was amusing though.

Also amusing were his shrill cries of "GET USED TO IT" when he didn't have an answer.

Richard Denniss was good. He refused to play the futile Monkton game which is the best anyone can do in these pointless debates. He just stated his case as if the demented peer wasn't even there. After hearing this I think it is the only viable tactic against Monkton and his relentless barrage of turds-rolled-in-glitter talking points. Ultimately Monkton just sounds like a pompous wanker so if anyone finds themselves in a debate with him they should simply stay calm, ignore him, and let the silly twat slowly commit character suicide.

I'm amazed how people can be Fascist and Communist at the same time, didn't they have a war over it? guess they must have just misunderstood their own ideology. I guess once somebody denies Science the doors are opened to re-writing history, bitter irony.

I wonder if Cardinal George Pell would have the nerve to join the Gallileo Society? I wouldn't be surprised considering what an insensitive prick he is - although his irony gland would surely overheat and burst into flames.

Just left the press club debate. Apart from the silly journalist who gave him a free hit with the utterly irrelevant question about whether he can sit in the house of lords or not, the debate was good value. There was no 'get up' stack. if anything i'd suggest the opposite, with about two tables full of hardcore Monckton fans who clapped and cheered his arrival and jumped in with raucous applause at everything he said (no matter how little sense it made).

It's slightly depressing that anyone takes this guy seriously, but props to Richard Dennis for remaining wholly on topic.

Anyway, if i was PM i'd be getting a hold of Richard's notes and quoting non-stop for the next two years. His analogies to insurance were spot on and simple enough for even a child to understand and his response to the question about GM and climate change was lucid and worth reflecting on.

Anyone know if there is going to be a transcript? And is there enough interest for a Deltoid post?

Anyone have a link to the video of the National Press Club video? Tim's link just takes you to the front page of the ABC, and the National Press Club site doesn't seem to have a video link.

So, can anyone imagine anything to do that discredits Monckton further or ever convinces him?

No, so:

Presumably there are people who sponsored him or otherwise took him seriously. I suggest getting as many as possible either saying:

yes, we take Monckton seriously, and we don't care about the swastika or the House of Lords or anything else and we'll have him back

OR

sorry, mistake, no more.

keep asking.

replay 10pm tonight on ABC news 24 and you can get transcripts on the NPC website (for a fee)

John i think you're being too simplistic. You don't ban people because you don't like their message. You continually point out they're wrong until they become irrelevant. The problem is not Monckton, per se, it's that people listen to what he (or any other charismatic figure head) says. He and his supporters are very clever in the way they communicate. They don't necessarily lie, "they sow the seeds of doubt" as Naomi Oreskes states in Carlisle's background piece. unfortunately, when they're saying what you want to hear (i.e., you've got a vested financial interest in 'believing'), it's very difficult to put the other case. As Garnaut said, introducing climate change policy is an insidious problem, more so than with smoking (lung cancer) and cfc's (ozone hole) because people aren't going to die within a generation and there may never be any clear empirical link. This is an argument that may well be raging 50/100 years from now, more so if we actually introduce a climate policy that puts off harmful climate change (Imagine Opposition leader Wyatt Roy in the house in 2060 pointing across the despatch box and hollering: "you introduced this tax 50 years ago and we still haven't seen climate change!").

Are Affluent powerful Western countries loathe to act because they (sub-consciously) believe they will be able to withstand the effects better than poorer countries?

Isn't this the nasty and pointy end of Capitalism at work?

It's all about being on top of the 'economic ladder'.

"You continually point out they're wrong until they become irrelevant."

You're the simplistic one here.

Given Monckton's suggested solution to AIDS one would think he'd be careful about bringing up fascism:
"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

According to Monckton's logic, if 97% of dcotors you seek advice from tell you to do something you do not like, then you should become a medical scientist yourself and decide yourself.

Monckton tried the "blind them with science approach" (with lots of lies of course). Hopefully the audience realized he was being condescending, even if they didn't realize the lies.

Also, I wish someone had asked him "can you cite any papers that don't have either Lindzen or Spencer as an author?" at the point where he wheeled out their names but of course there are any number of dishonest responses he could have made to that. There's just no contest when one side has no standard for honesty and the other side has to be honest.

Gee, for a guy you think is just a demented peer, you all sure get your undies in a bunch whenever he says anything.

Not as much as you and your fellow denialists get all girly-squee when he talks. If you and your friends figure he's a potty peer, why do you keep paying him a couple of hundred grand to tour around and talk to you?

If his membership of the HoL was irrelevant, why is he continuing to make so much of it?

Rick, we don't think he's demented, it's a plainly obvious fact. Well, plainly obvious to all those that, as Wow points out, don't fawn over him. Unfortunately the fawners are so numerous and dense that they demand a response.

Frankly, if sensible people make no response, the delusional rabble claim they've 'won'.

Bradford:

just a demented peer

He's not just a demented peer, he's a professional liar who sucks in useful fools like you.

Dammit, the ABC site doesn't stream the National Press Club. Hopefully someone will Youtube it at some point.

Thinking that someone can cherrypick data without knowing that they're cherrypicking your data is like imagining someone can accidentally do a handstand on a motorcycle without being aware of it. Monckton and his elk repeatedly cherrypick data. They know they're lying. We know. They know we know. Let's move on.

I see from News.com.au that Lord Monckton (can he really be called a "lord" now? Anyway...) has made yet another quite testable claim: Australia is now considered a sovereign risk due to putting a price on carbon. Presumably similar to such countries as Germany, France and so on. So lets see if the AUD collapses.

In the mean time, I can't quite keep up with what sort of person I am: Apparently I am a Greenie for being concerned about the environment, and a wealth-redistributing Socialist for having it paid for by the polluters, and a Fascist for insisting that it be done, and a one-world-governmentalist for agreeing that other countries should do it too, or is that Communism. But wait, I would like to see an emissions trading scheme so a fair and accurate price can be determined, and let the market decide how much to pay, and what industries and solutions should grow to meet the problem.

So I am a Greenie, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Big Government, Free Market Capitalist? GSFCBGFMC?

Reminds me of a recent essay on Mother Jones:

[...] the issue of the legality of [...torture] techniques was superseded by a fierce national debate over their efficacy. [...]

[...] If legality had truly mattered, it would have been beside the point whether torture was an effective way to produce "actionable intelligence" and so prepare the way for the killing of a bin Laden.

By analogy, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that robbing banks can be a successful and profitable way to make a living, but who would agree that a successful bank robber hadn't committed an act as worthy of prosecution as an unsuccessful one caught on the spot? Efficacy wouldn't matter in a society whose central value was the rule of law.

Monckton, Bolt, and Watts are the kind of people who think bank robbery is wrong not because it's morally/legally wrong, but because it's ineffective.

-- frank

(argh, bad formatting, let me try again)

* * *

Reminds me of a recent essay on Mother Jones:

> [...] the issue of the legality of [...torture] techniques was superseded by a fierce national debate over their efficacy. [...]

> [...] If legality had truly mattered, it would have been beside the point whether torture was an effective way to produce "actionable intelligence" and so prepare the way for the killing of a bin Laden.

> By analogy, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that robbing banks can be a successful and profitable way to make a living, but who would agree that a successful bank robber hadn't committed an act as worthy of prosecution as an unsuccessful one caught on the spot? Efficacy wouldn't matter in a society whose central value was the rule of law.

Monckton, Bolt, and Watts are the kind of people who think bank robbery is wrong not because it's morally/legally wrong, but because it's ineffective.

-- frank

Monckton has explicitly said that cherry picking is not acceptable, so he has no excuses for doing it. Not that this will stop him doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/14/fbW-aHvjOgM

1) One more time:
a) Monckton has been scientifically wrong, again and again, debunked over and over.
b) Monckton has made one ludicrous claim after another, contrary to simple fact and told so.
c) Much of this has long been documented here by Tim and elsewhere by Barry Bickmore, John Abraham and many others.

2) Still, a bunch of people quote him or invite him to speak, like the AFA, see Big Footprint - Is Green the New Tyranny conference, with this agenda, featuring an all-star cast. Monckton gave the opening keynote and participated in 3 panels, including one by Michael Chrichton (sic) deceased.

Another participant (2 panels, one with Monckton & Steve Milloy) was the recently-discovered "President of the National Association of Scholars" Peter Wood, see here at Deltoid.

Wood wrote 3 articles stirred by this, starting with Tyranny or Theft - Part 1. He describes Monckton thus:

"The UCLA conference, on the other hand, was rambunctious and rather assertive in its diagnoses and prescriptions. It aimed at kicking out the props holding up bad science, worse economics, and really awful politics.

Big Footprint

The tone of âBig Footprintâ was set by the opening keynote address by Christopher MoncktonâLord Moncktonâa hereditary peer and deputy leader of the UK Independence Party who is an outspoken skeptic about anthropogenic global warming. âSkepticâ is perhaps an understatement in his case.

Lord Monckton is an agile, nose-tweaking, derisive foe of those who believe that significant global warming has resulted from human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. He is more caustic still towards those who believe that carbon reductions, cap and trade, windmills, and the like can be deployed to achieve any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases. Letâs say Lord Moncktonâs keynote address was not an attempt to find the redeeming features of a flawed movement, or to discover a winsome approach to those who are ambivalent about the alleged threat of global warming.

Several other speakers took similar tough-minded approaches, though none were so wry in delivery."

Got that? Wry delivery. From that description, would you have recognized the swastika talk?<?a>

3) The following is neither ad hominem nor an attempt to excuse (although in this one thing, he has my sympathy) but the simple fact has long been public that Monckton suffers from Graves' Disease. See this (which lists Monckton) or Mental and Emotional Aspects of Gravesâ Disease and Hyperthyroidism, which includes items like:

"Histrionic Personality Disorder. This personality disorder could be described as a pervasive pattern of excessive emotionally and attention seeking"

UKIP says he has found a cure for Graves' and others:

"2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Gravesâ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue."

A psychologist friend tells me that delusions of grandeur are common side-effects of Graves'.

3) I'm neither doctor nor psychiatrist, so claim no diagnosis, but the observed facts of Monckton's behavior certainly fit a disconnect with reality. If so, nothing *anyone* says is likely to change his behavior in the slightest...

4) But if seems fair to get *anyone* on record, permanently, visibly, who takes Monckton seriously. Ask them why they are feeding the possible delusion of a possibly-seriously-ill person, and why on Earth they take him seriously? or pay money to bring him to Oz?

Apparently flat-out lying and slandering people and claiming to have sources that either don't support you or don't exist is perfectly fine as long as it's called "nose-tweaking."

Much like "controversial" or (my personal un-favorite) "the person __________ love to hate", it's just an attempt to spin bullying dishonesty into a virtue.

Clearly Moncktons use of the black swastika within a white circle and on a red background was in the context of Buddhism.

I mean how could anyone possibly mistake it for anything else?

Chris O'Neill | July 19, 2011 4:08 AM,
"According to Monckton's logic, if 97% of dcotors you seek advice from tell you to do something you do not like, then you should become a medical scientist yourself and decide yourself." Should read: "According to Monckton's logic, if 97% of dcotors you seek advice from tell you to do something you do not like, then you should decide that since you watch Grey's Anatomy every week, you already are an expert. No need to trouble those pesky textbooks."

#33 was truncated, maybe too long. Here is the rest:

3) The following is neither ad hominem nor an attempt to excuse (although in this one thing, he has my sympathy) but the simple fact has long been public that Monckton suffers from Graves' Disease.

See this (which lists Monckton) or Mental and Emotional Aspects of Gravesâ Disease and Hyperthyroidism, which includes items like:

"Histrionic Personality Disorder. This personality disorder could be described as a pervasive pattern of excessive emotionally and attention seeking"

UKIP says he has found a cure for Graves' and others:

"2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Gravesâ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue."

A psychologist friend tells me that delusions of grandeur are common side-effects of Graves'.

3) I'm neither doctor nor psychiatrist, so claim no diagnosis, but the observed facts of Monckton's behavior certainly fit a disconnect with reality. If this in fact i caused by serious illness, nothing *anyone* says is likely to change his behavior in the slightest...

4) But if seems fair to ask *anyone* who takes Monckton seriously in any way to go on record, visibly.

Ask them why they are feeding the delusions of a possibly-seriously-ill person, and why on Earth they take him seriously? or pay money to bring him to Oz? If they change the subject, keep asking.

i thought that the climate sceptics would put the video up on their blog, they have .....TCS blog... will get you there,
leave a comment but know that the moderator there is also the blog troll .....

For those who haven't seen it, there is a youtube which it looks like someone took in their loungeroom (in case you cannot access iview) which I have 'quote mined' from the infamous Neil ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207lg-1GWAE

Dr Richard Denniss also has his opening remarks up in pdf format, which can be downloaded from the following (cheers Min at the Cafe )

https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=883&act=display

John @37 - Whether that list of Graves' disease symptoms is accurate or not, you might want to find a more reputable site to cite. The one you linked to smacks of quackery.

I've been aware of Nationals MP's giving aid to Bob Carter in his 'taking money from the gullible by telling them what they want to hear' speaking tours of rural Australia. Any such direct links between politicians and Monckton's present activities or is it all more indirect?

As far as some of the most vocal and influential voices of support I suspect we are seeing a lot of crude old 'cash for comment' and those putting up the cash have very deep pockets. More widely the commodification of public opinion - Advertising, PR, tankthink - leads big media to adopt the aims and viewpoint of the biggest purchasers of this commodity, not as one directing the other but as an emerging commonality of interest. Big Coal (and the fossil fuel reliant sector generally) is no longer able to rely on their entrenched influence in the political backroom; the response is to become a big buyer and potentially the highest bidder for this 'product'. At stake is staggering monetary value for existing fossil fuel reserves in Australia; the only real restraint is the underlying individual ethics of the people involved since the 'market', whether for commodified opinion making or for those fossil fuels themselves, remains amoral.

Monckton at the National Press Club Canberra claimed @24:52 to have "...indeed lectured at faculty level" and stated "I have written papers [sic] in the reviewed literature on the subject.." on climate sensitivity!

I guess he figures no journalist has challenged him so far,so he may as well go the whole hog...

So 41 comments mostly aimed at the Monckton's character... If he was only allowed a single sentence, I think he would say "temperatures have not risen (in a statistically significant way) in the last decade, and I defy any scientist to prove me wrong". That's what y'all should be debating.

re: 42

Well, it was much warmer this afternoon than this morning. So, Monckton's wrong.

Rob Bast,if that's all Monckton would say then he'd be extraordinarily foolish..like Bob Carter.

#43 debate what?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

Rob, that's a misleading question to begin with, one decade being, by it's own shortness, insufficient to determine an underlying temperature trend or to tell us whether agw is real or not. The body of knowledge on climate developed to date is far greater than a single decade's worth of global temperature data and reducing the debate to that comes across as an attempt to use widespread ignorance and sciency sounding argument to mislead and deceive. Like Monckton.

The science is more than clear enough and it's about the physical processes, not statistical trickery surrounding selected portions of a selected one out of many independent measures of change to our world. Leaving out the strongest known natural process impacting year to year surface temperatures (ENSO) because the most recent decade would show warming if taken into consideration is fundamental to this particular argument for warming having 'stopped'. ie it's about framing the question in a misleading and deceptive way that leads the ignorant to the wrong conclusion - pure Monckton. And best to avoid mention of all the other independent indicators and measures of what's going on either or you might see people coming to the 'wrong' conclusion.

I don't mind discussion of the most recent decade but it has to be in context; by itself it's definitely not what we'all should be debating.

then again, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic…

Rob Bast, pointing out that a liar like Monckton has been caught out telling lies again is not an attack on his character, it's a statement of fact.

There's a difference.

Sadly, the climate denying right view any criticism as "abuse". It's how they shield themselves from reality.

Rob Bast,Monckton again from 40:40 in his NPC 'debate' with Prof.Richard Denniss is asserting before a national audience that he is a "specialist in the field of determining climate sensitivity,and I lecture on this at faculty level."

Rob,just supply evidence for a publication and citation history,tertiary level employment records and some course material and notes.

Nick: a [scholar search](http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+author%3Ac+author%3…) finds nothing apart from his piece in an (un-refereed) APS magazine, and an n^th author credit on a SEPP white-paper.

those disgusting communists at Google have struck another blow against free speech and capitalism.

Don't suppose anyone saw a Monkton vs Denniss debate at the press club ?
I didn't see any reference to it on their ABC. Does this mean the debate didn't actually take place ? ;-)

incidentally, when did Scholar start return blog entries? or have they always done that, and i've just never searched for anything stupid enough to see them?

> "temperatures have not risen (in a statistically significant way) in the last decade, and I defy any scientist to prove me wrong"

"The temperatures have increased in the last decade to the 90% confidence level" would be the answer (assuming it passes the 90% confidence limit).

"The temperatures have increased in a statistically significant way in the last 30 years appropriate for determining the climate trend" would be another one.

"Why is it only the last decade? Who died and made YOU god?" Would be another.

"Has it been cooling to a statistically significant level at any time in the past 60 years?" would be yet another response.

"Has it been statistically speaking flat in the last decade" yet another.

I'll give credit where it's due: News Ltd did run one story pointing out what a snake-oil salesman Monckton is, in the Perth Sunday times: [Debunking the bunkum of that dopey Monckton](http://www.perthnow.com.au/debunking-the-bunkum-of-that-dopey-monckton/…)

@Rob
> So 41 comments mostly aimed at the Monckton's character... If he was only allowed a single sentence, I think he would say "temperatures have not risen (in a statistically significant way) in the last decade, and I defy any scientist to prove me wrong". That's what y'all should be debating.

They won't touch that subject with a bargepole, just as they won't touch; the failure of sea-levels to accelerate their rise; the failure of hurricanes to devastate the planet; the failure of droughts to devastate the planet; the failure of the Barrier Reef to self-destruct; the failure of Arctic ice to vanish by various past dates, and the missing millions of predicted climate refugees.

Harold Camping is an apocalypse amateur compared with these people.

If he was only allowed a single sentence, I think he would say

Shorter Rob Bast and Rick Bradford:

We're going to ignore everything Monckton actually said, and state what we wish Monckton had said. Therefore Monckton is right and you warmists are wrong! Victory!

-- frank

Bradford:

the failure of Arctic ice to vanish by various past dates

For example, Arctic ice was supposed to disappear by 2040 and as we all know it hasn't. Bradford has a mind as sharp as a razor picking up that one.

> the failure of sea-levels to accelerate their rise;

[You mean this?](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise…)

> the failure of hurricanes to devastate the planet

Which is only a denialist claim.

> the failure of droughts to devastate the planet

Which is another denialist alarmist claim. All these are doing is showing that the denialists are wrong in their hysterical fear.

> the failure of the Barrier Reef to self-destruct

Ooh, another denialist claim of alarm.

> the failure of Arctic ice to vanish by various past dates

Yup, more denialist cries of alarm.

> the missing millions of predicted climate refugees.

Gosh, you only managed ONE claim that the climate scientists have made and that one turned out to be wrong.

I guess on that count, you're doing about as well as Mad Lord Monkfish.

>@Rob Harold Camping is an apocalypse amateur compared with

Try clicking on your new friend's name, Prick.

[...] the issue of the legality of [...torture] techniques was superseded by a fierce national debate over their efficacy. [...]

[...] If legality had truly mattered, it would have been beside the point whether torture was an effective way to produce "actionable intelligence" and so prepare the way for the killing of a bin Laden.

By analogy, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that robbing banks can be a successful and profitable way to make a living, but who would agree that a successful bank robber hadn't committed an act as worthy of prosecution as an unsuccessful one caught on the spot? Efficacy wouldn't matter in a society whose central value was the rule of law.

In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice, they're not.

In theory, if you want to stop an undesirable trade, it should be sufficient to merely stop up all supply. In theory, if you take any action other than stopping up all supply (since that is already, in theory, sufficient) then it constitutes evidence that your real motivation is something other than stopping the trade in question.

In practice, however, an undesirable trade is best stopped by attacking both sides of the trade, doing what you can to not only reduce supply but reduce demand.

Trying to make torture illegal (or, more accurately, trying to establish that yes, the techniques being used do fall into the category of already illegal activity, to an establishment that doesn't want to hear it) is reducing supply (at least, among that segment of the population that is willing to use torture, but only if it's legal and aboveboard torture.)

Establishing that torture is ineffective, however, is reducing demand.

Antaeus Feldspar:

> In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice, they're not. [...]

> Establishing that torture is ineffective [...] is reducing demand.

I don't see how it can be 'practical' or 'pragmatic' or whatever to oppose torture by saying that torture is ineffective. It only further cements the idiotic idea that 'it's OK for me to trample all over the fundamental rights of others as long as it's Effective™ in getting what I want'.

Whatever happened to respecting fundamental human rights because, um, they're fundamental human rights? Because you yourself would want to be protected by these same human rights?

A more practical strategy might be to say, 'if you keep promoting the idea that it's OK to treat human rights as optional, then I'll make it my goal in life to make sure your wallet bleeds to no end'. Now that will be an eminently practical strategy which I can get behind.

-- frank

With respect to that NPC debate I was disappointed how easily Monckton evaded searching questions on his many misrepresentation's during the course of that debate. The way he was allowed to answer Jennifer Bennett of (I think she said) Campus Review being a case in point.

Jennifer asked Monckton about his not going head to head with scientists in debate and why Monckton does not submit his research to a quality peer reviewed journal.

To which Monckton, slippery as ever, ponders aloud as to why Tim Flannery, whom Monckton accuses of knowing no more about climate science than he does, Al Gore and Professor Stefan are never asked that question, before going on to assert, yet again, that his article 'Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered' in 'Physics and Society. July 2008' was an example of peer review.

We all know that is nonsense and indeed the abstract itself declares in its opening paragraph:

'The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review,...'

But regulars here know that this particular bit of Monckton deception has been exposed by Gavin Schmidt, Arthur Smith and Eli Rabett as mentioned by Tim here:

Monckton flunks Latin

That NPC debate seemed to me to be more like a Monckton fan association meeting, there appeared nobody ready to challenge his Lawdship's most egregious assertions and there were many of those.

It is a great shame that Monckton can get away with such devious behaviour without serious challenge in a public forum.

Finally it seems somebody is pushing this old rubbish again:

Climate Change Disclosure-The Great Global Warming Swindle under this reasoning:

'This video is a response to Lord Christopher Monkton Debate Dr Richard Dennis at the, National Press Club Address 19/07/2011 '

I'm involved in a debate with a bunch of dumb deniers about Monckton over at Bishop Hill. It's quite entertaining!

They won't touch that subject with a bargepole

That claim might have been a tad more convincing had it not followed several comments which did, in fact, address that very subject.

I don't see how it can be 'practical' or 'pragmatic' or whatever to oppose torture by saying that torture is ineffective. It only further cements the idiotic idea that 'it's OK for me to trample all over the fundamental rights of others as long as it's Effective⢠in getting what I want'.

No, I really can't follow your logic here. Practical and pragmatic is exactly what it is, to try and convince those who consider torture to be a valid choice that the rewards for choosing it are actually quite low. It is practical to admit the truth even when the truth is unpleasant, and the truth is that some people are and will always be only motivated by the perceived rewards for their behavior. If you think it's practical and pragmatic to try and influence such people only by appealing to their concern for abstract ideals and for the equally abstract (to them) welfare of others, I really have to question whether you understand the dictionary definitions of "practical" and "pragmatic".

Whatever happened to respecting fundamental human rights because, um, they're fundamental human rights? Because you yourself would want to be protected by these same human rights?

Those are arguments that carry weight with you and me and others who have well-developed senses of empathy. But it's a fundamental mistake to assume that everyone is like us in that respect.

> If you think it's practical and pragmatic to try and influence such people only by appealing to their concern for abstract ideals and for the equally abstract (to them) welfare of others, I really have to question whether you understand the dictionary definitions of "practical" and "pragmatic".

Ever noticed that nobody needs to use these "pragmatic" arguments when arguing why, for example, it's wrong to rob banks, it's wrong to tell lies, and it's wrong to threaten to rape children? Ever wondered why the "pragmatic" argument is somehow unneeded here?

Perhaps it's because we don't even try to legitimize the argument that 'it's OK to rob banks, or rape kids, or tell lies, as long as it's effective'. And perhaps it's because the wackos are then forced to give lip service to the idea that these things are simply morally wrong. Don't you think?

-- frank

Nice pic, Tim. I'm using it on the Christopher Monckton SourceWatch page now.

Lionel A:

> We all know that is nonsense and indeed the abstract itself declares in its opening paragraph:
>> The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review

though of course, the only reason the APS had to add that note to the article was that Monckton had been parading it around as an example of his supposedly "peer reviewed" research...

ligne

Yes, I know. But why on earth is his mendacity not challenged at these 'debates'? Poor Jennifer Bennett wanted to be but seemed intimidated by her peers, afraid of their 'review' no doubt. I felt for her and her position as a representative of, at a guess, a comparative minnow of a paper which published this article:

Press club debate is 'shoddy journalism': scientist

Monckton has been called "dotty" but that's an affectionate term for "eccentric". I suspect that the guy is clinically insane. Maybe the illness which cut short his formal employability did some damage.

Well, well. Graves disease.

"Mentally, Graves' disease can be very disturbing. Mood swings, thinking impairment and other mental symptoms can be difficult to handle, and make it appear that the patient is suffering from a severe mental disorder." [Wikipedia]

Now you can't diagnose patients without being a doctor, and you can't do it without meeting a patient. I guess that goes for symptoms (they are diagnosed as well, right?) as well as disease as well as cause.

But we can play the numbers game. What are the odds that an individual like Moncton has erratic behavior that can be explained by "natural variation"? LOL.

Oops. I forgot to add between the 3d and 4th paragraph that Monckton is already diagnosed and his diagnose made public. Hence the point of the Denial Likelihood Game™.

re: Graves Disease

Wiki indicates that frequent defecation is a symptom. Can I hear an "amen"?

Wendy: "The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm"

Paper: "Our observations suggest that polar bears swimming in openwater near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004."

She couldn't have even bothered reading it.

Thanks, David - so Wendy was correct. The paper does not say what Monckton says it said.

Well it looks like we've discovered Monckton's Achilles heal, it comes in the form of Vince whirlwind. Reckon you can squeeze a quick debate into your schedule Vince?

David,think about it for a second,will ya? No mention of storm,so Monckton is not even literally correct on that score.More importantly,Monckton gives no context or analysis.Did the 'big storm' break up ice that the bears were on? Or were the bears in open water in sub-optimal conditions for reasons he won't discuss,but which the actual paper does? The paper observes that while the bears are regarded as strong swimmers the vast bulk of observations of swimming bears are made close to pack ice or shorelines.It gives examples of observations suggesting that extensive open water swimming by bears is metabolicly expensive and therefore risky.It's not really possible to read Monnet and Gleason 2006 and see it as confident that shrinking ice extent imposes no danger to Polar Bear populations[in fact it concludes the opposite]...or to make such a laughably simplistic point as Monckton does.

No, David, I'm not going to debate a fuckwit.

Also, David, I notice yet another example of the link between illiteracy and denialism. "Achilles Heel".

Nick I don't want to fill the thread up with large chunks of verbatim quotes from the paper. Read it yourself, the ABC have a link to it somewhere, it clearly states the bears died during stormy weather. Hell, my quote above says they did! "High winds and rough seas", a storm by other words. Wendy says no, she's wrong.

Enough with the angels dancing on pin heads, you don't fool people with that.

David:

> Enough with the angels dancing on pin heads,

Who exactly started this by nitpicking something that Wendy Carlisle said?

Maybe, while you're at it, you can also explain how "you [Monckton] are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords" can be interpreted to mean that Monckton is somehow a member of the House of Lords, while you continue to whine about other people nitpicking.

-- frank

David: ask Monckton to explain the phrase 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' to you. Apparently he's good at Latin.

#84 looks like spam.