In attempting to cover for DPF’s embarrassing disaster of a post on climate change, in his comments section some prominent right wingers (most notably John Ansell) pointed to a recent presentation by Lord Monckton. The presentation got a lot of publicity this month, including thinly veiled advertising from Fox News’ Glenn Beck, for arguing that Al Gore, the IPCC, Barack Obama, and pretty much everyone else are conspiratorial and ‘communistic’ liars and frauds on climate change. Bold claims. Ansell wanted to know if anyone on the left had any actual, specific criticism of Lord Monckton’s presentation. Absence of such criticism, Ansell seems to believe, shows up all those convinced by the IPCC on global warming as a bunch of cowards, scared of The Truth as dictated by Monckton.
Over the break, lest anyone comes to actually be fooled by Lord Monckton, is a quick summary of the distortions, lies and other inanities that I found in his video and slide presentation. It is a long post, but I wanted to be as thorough as I could.
(Note: I am not a climate scientist, so I left most of the techie climate science alone – natural science folk: please chime in via the comments. But I do work in the social sciences, which I believe gives me some ability to talk about many other aspects of Monckton’s talk)
1. Monckton’s Big Finish on International Relations in Utterly Laughable.
Here is Monckton’s big, dramatic conclusion about the negotiations around the Treaty of Copenhagen:
“I have read that [draft Copenhagen] treaty. And what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “a climate debt” because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200-pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because they captured it now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize laureate; of course he’ll sign it.
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state’s parties and because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.”
There are so many obvious errors here it is hard to fathom how even Monckton believes it. Specifically:
- There is no draft Treaty of Copenhagen;
- The closest you can get to a draft treaty (the “Reordering and consolidation of text in the revised negotiating text“) is so riddled with multiple options, bracketed portions, and so on, that nobody can discern from it what the member states may eventually agree to, if anything;
- Section 38 of this document that Monckton references does indeed mention ‘government,’ but only in relation to the agreed aims of this treaty. There is no proposal for ‘world government’ in the normal use of the term, only for any body charged with implementing parts of the Treaty on behalf of the member States. Certainly there are no references to any principles associated with communism;
- Suggesting that President Obama has any sympathy with Communism is plainly silly (unless Monckton is also willing to declare his former boss Mrs Thatcher a communist for having a progressive income tax);
- The US Constitution does not, anywhere, say that Treaties supersede the Constitution. In fact, US practice has been the precise opposite,
- The US can unilaterally pull out of any treaty it likes, whenever it likes.
These and other errors are why politifact.com invented a new category of lie, ‘britches on fire’, to describe just how profoundly silly this warning is. The fact that some right wingers, including the influential Mr Ansell, take this warning at all seriously betrays a complete lack of critical thinking on their part.
2. Worst. Economist. Ever.
The 81st (!) slide in Monckton’s presentation was sold in the discussion as ‘the end of the debate on the economics [of] climate change.’ Another bold claim. It purports to show that addressing climate change is uneconomic because it would cost $250 trillion (2009 dollars) to address a 3.4 degree increase in mean global temperature by 2100.
This analysis is garbage because:
- To decide whether a course of action is economically wise, you also need to consider the costs of **not** engaging in it, in this case the costs of not addressing a 3.4 degree temperature rise. Monckton does not even attempt that. This is the biggest economic flaw here he does a cost-benefit analysis on action to address climate change without even finding out the benefits! He is like the person who says: ‘this medicine is very expensive, and therefore you should not take it.’ Fool.
- The $250 trillion figure is the cost over the next 1,360 years. 1,360! All of a sudden the annual cost does not look so mountainous (by the by, Monckton gets upset with people who try to predict something as complex as global temperature over the next 91 years, but seems happy enough to predict something as complex as human response to the global temperature over a timeframe 15 times as long);
- The $250 trillion figure assumes that the Waxman Markey Climate Bill in the US is the only way the world will address climate change for the next 1,360 years, or alternatively that all efforts to address climate change cost the same around the world, and that there will be no relevant technological progress or economies of scale over the next 1,360 years. All of those assumptions are, of course, entirely silly.
3. Scientific Method: FAIL
Late in the presentation, Monckton says that by arguing that there are data inconsistent with the IPCC predictions, he has shown ‘there is no climate problem.’ Now I will admit that some of the evidence he raises in opposition to the IPCC’s specific predictions is interesting and, on the generous assumption that he presented it accurately, is worthy of further study.
Even if we were to believe all of his evidence wholesale, however, his conclusion is still a massive scientific overstatement because:
- Nobody in science can ever claim to conclusively prove anything, let alone the absence of something;
- If you find simple evidence inconsistent with position A, it does not automatically follow that the position [not A] is true. By that logic, the claim that ‘lower taxes cause higher growth’ would have been entirely overturned by the New Zealand experience early this decade, when tax rates went up and so did growth. We could then, by Monckton’s logic, have claimed to have conclusively proved that there is no relationship between tax rates and growth. That would be a massive overstatement, just like Monckton’s claims.
4. Distortions of Climate Science
Even as a non-expert in climate science, some of Monckton’s distortions of the evidence and of the IPCC reports are obvious:
- The biggest hit Monckton claims is that the world has been cooling since 2002. This true in as far as it goes. But Monckton commits the same logical fallacy he criticizes others for, namely picking the most advantageous starting date for his analysis. More importantly, however, he utterly misrepresents the IPCC predictions of global temperatures over the 2002-2009 period. He presents the IPCC prediction as a linear increase when it is not. And he massively understates the IPCC’s uncertainty over their predictions. According to Monckton, the IPCC claimed to predict the 2003 global average temperature with a margin for error of only plus or minus 0.02 degrees Celsius. Of course the IPCC claimed no such thing. Here are two graphs showing first Monckton’s claim of the IPCC predictions, then the predictions themselves. The graphs are from the good people at realclimate.org, who also show Monckton getting the IPCC’s projections of CO2 levels also shockingly wrong.First Monckton
Then the truth
- Monckton makes a big deal of the fact that not one of the 500 or so papers on climate change provided any evidence of the catastrophic scenarios touted by people such as Al Gore. This lack of evidence might be because said catastrophes are predicted to happen in the future, and evidence of the future is impossible to collect, to scientific standards of ‘evidence,’ in the present. So that ‘scientific’ point was nothing more than linguistic sophistry.
- Monckton also makes a big deal of the fact that the predicted anthropogenic change in CO2 levels accounts for only 1/2000th of the atmosphere, and in his discussion mocks as prima facie ridiculous the claim that 1/2000th of the atmosphere can be responsible for 1/6th of the total greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. The problem with Monckton’s argument here is that not all 2000ths of the atmosphere are created equal, just as not all fractions of, say, the human body are created equal. To illustrate: the median lethal dose of bee venom is about 3mg per kg of bodyweight. That is, by weight, one part in 300,000. Going from no bee venom in the body to 1/300,000th bee venom will likely kill you. One tiny 300,000th of the body changes the body from being 100% alive to 100% dead. Other similar examples abound.
- His discussion of the Medieval Warm Period suggests that the IPCC simply ignore it in the hope it will disappear, when in fact they discuss it openly and address it with evidence in Chapter 6 of their latest (2007) report. Oops.
5. A Delusional, Pompous Fool.
Quite apart from this (undoubtedly incomplete) list of substantive errors, Lord Monckton further undermines his own credibility as a serious commentator by:
- Claiming to be a climate scientist when he is not (nine of his publications on the topic come from his own think tank, while the tenth is from the letters section of a journal. He does not have a peer-reviewed publication in any scientific journal on any topic, let alone on climate science);
- Claiming to be a scientist when he is not (see above. Monckton’s only qualifications are in classics hence all the pretentious Latin in his presentation and journalism);
- Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate when he is not (Crazy, eh! Monckton says he ‘deserves’ a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a ‘contributor to the IPCC’, which won a Nobel Prize in 2007. The IPCC, however, does not list him as a contributor, and his ‘Nobel Prize Pin’ was made for him by a friend in New York rather than by anybody in Scandinavia. Hmmm )
- Claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, on multiple occasions, when he is not. (He has **run** for the House of Lords twice, but he lost both times. Perhaps he did not notice those losses?!)
- Making ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.
I hope this list of shortcomings, both substantive and personal, causes at least some on the right (I’m looking at you, John Ansell) to re-evaluate their rush to buy whatever Lord Monckton is selling.
I will give Monckton this, though. His knack for theatre and deception have given him far more attention than the intellectual weight of his argument warrants. For that I congratulate you, Lord Monckton.
Great post. I didn’t realize that this charlatan was still around and commenting on things that he really doesn’t understand.
BTW: I cleaned up some of the HTML formatting and layout to make it easier to get the points.
I just love it when people who don’t even have the courage to post under their real name take shots at Lord Monckton or any other climate skeptic.
Um… his name’s Lynn Prentice. It’s public knowledge. He’s the guy who operates the site.
and the author Rob Salmond has his name at the top of the post
Mark Giller is quite the journalist. Check out his ‘site, but be careful, it ain’t exactly easy on the eye.
Good Post 🙂
Looney tunes from the standard more like.
The climate is changing always has always will and if you think the UN via the IPCC can do anything about it you are seriously misguided
And even if they could entrusting third world thugocracies with the keys to the planets future climate is foolishness beyond belief.
It is a source of comfort to me that fortunately the likes of Robert Mugabe cannot influence the climate but sadly people like them and their proxies have convinced the gullible that they can by transferring wealth from the productive and industrious to parasites such as themselves.
You true believers are just a bunch of patsies being suckered by the same old bunch of thieves who have preyed on mankind for the past ten thousand years with charlatanism
Andrei got about 100 words into the post before getting a headache. Fortunately, he already knew what the politically correct rightwing view was without having to get informed on the issue.
Thanks for that insightful and illuminating response, it’s really added a lot to the climate debate. Did you intend to actually address or rebut any of Rob’s points about Monckton, or was this simply an opportunity for a mindlessly dyslexic denier rant?
….still around and commenting on things that he really doesn’t understand.
Seems to be a common problem in the CCD faithful.
Robert Mugabe can’t influence the climate? That saddens me more than I care to admit.
‘cept for this bit, of course:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Of course, it means state constitutions, but the words are all there 🙂
Are you having a laugh?
Yes. While acknowledging I can see how one would make this mistake. Treaties are supreme law in the United States.
Doesn’t it say that the constitution, the laws of the united states and all treaties made shall be the supreme law?
How does this indicate that treaties supersede the constitution?
(or am I reading it wrong?)
So in the US, a treaty, once ratified, acts as law. (Unlike NZ and Britain, where treaties don’t need ratification, but do need legislation for them to be binding on citizens).
The US can and does withdraw from treaties by presidential edict: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
Do treaties actually override constitutional provisions, though? Could the US enter into a treaty with Western Foalua that reintroduced slavery in both countries, for instance.
For clarification: What the Constitutional passage Graeme finds shows is that international treaties do take precedence over **State** Constitutions (that is the “notwithstanding” bit at the end), but it does not say treaties take precedence over the **US** Constitution. Instead, it says that the US Constitution, US laws, and international treaties jointly make up the supreme law of the US – but it does not say what happens when any two of those three sources of supreme law are in contradiction. In practice, Treaties have lost out certainly to the US Constitution and sometimes also to US Law.
It is a nice get by Graeme, but alas it cannot save his Lordship…
…I guess you could take Monckton’s vague wording to mean that **Minnesota** cannot unilaterally get out of the treaty once signed, because it is part of the US. Only the US could get Minnesota out of its obligations. That is trivially true. But then Monckton ruins that silly-but-at-least-trivially-true interpretation of his comments by talking about “the biggest paying country,” which makes clear he is talking about the US and the US Constitution and not Minnesota (not a country, and not even the biggest paying State) and Minnesota’s Constitution. Which makes his comments, of course, dead wrong.
Thanks Rob, that’s how I read it.
Graeme do people actually pay you to be a lawyer?
felix, I suspect it’s a lawyery joke. If you just read the bolded words it says what the good Lord claims it says. Otherwise not. Which was (I suspect) Graeme’s point.
For a profession that charges by the fricken word, he sure nuff don’t give them away in making his points clear sometimes.
Punctuation doesn’t come free either, apparently. If this comment had been paid for perhaps he would’ve put a colon in it.
Alas, we get the pro-bono version which only allows for a fullstop – rendering the sentence useless as it now conveys exactly the opposite meaning to what he intended.
All this confusion for the price of a dot.
For clarification: What the Constitutional passage Graeme finds shows is that international treaties do take precedence over **State** Constitutions
Thus, my statement “Of course, it means state constitutions…”
Graeme do people actually pay you to be a lawyer?
Yes. You will note that I made the point Rob made in my the initial comment.
he sure nuff don’t give them away in making his points clear sometimes.
So, just to remove the remotest trace of wit from my comment, I should make it, and then explain it in excruciating detail for anyone who doesn’t appreciate irony?
How does this indicate that treaties supersede the constitution?
It doesn’t. Thus, my answer “yes” to your question “are you having a laugh?”. And my initial statement, in the initial comment that “it means state constitutions”.
My point was that I understood how Monckton came to his mistaken belief about the effect of treaties under US law. It was based on words in the US Constitution – which slightly negates Rob’s point that it had no basis in them – but obviously was based on a misreading of those words. The only way one could come to that conclusion would be to read the words in bold only – obviously stupid (not unlike Monckton).
I thought it was reasonably clearly an attempt at humour. A little abstruse, certainly, so I don’t blame anyone for not initially seeing it, but the fact people still couldn’t see that it was humour after I was asked whether it was humour and answered “yes” is a little odd. But thank you for removing all the fun from it. And thank you for getting personal, that always increases the utility of blog comments. Do I get attacked every time I post here, now?
When you write the following:
“Yes. While acknowledging I can see how one would make this mistake. Treaties are supreme law in the United States.”
You are stating that although a mistake was made, treaties are indeed supreme law. The implication here is that treaties supersede the constitution and laws of the U.S. as that was the subject of the initial question you were responding to.
If you had put a colon after the word “mistake” you would be saying that you understand how someone could make such a mistake but treaties do not, in fact, supersede the constitution and laws of the U.S.
Get it yet?
Do I get attacked every time I post here, now?
What’s the matter Gwaeme? Mr pedantic himself can’t take a wittle bit of cowection when necessawy?
Treaties are supreme law in the United States.
The US Constitution itself states that treaties – along with federal laws and the US Constitution – are “supreme law”. You can state that it doesn’t say that, but it does say that. This is not really something that we can debate.
I’m not really sure what else I can add to this – perhaps any – debate with you; however, I do apologise that my forthright style has aggravated your speech impediment. I know these things are no laughing matter.
This is a good example of a Supreme Court decision that allowed regulations based on a Treaty to become law.
The case of Missouri v Holland (1920) presented the Court with an opportunity to define the reach of the treaty power. Missouri challenged the federal government’s regulation of the hunting of migratory birds, including its setting of seasons, hunting methods, and limits. The regulations were adopted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, implementing a treating signed by the United States and Great Britain (for Canada). The Court upheld the regulations, even though they were not supported by specific Article I powers of Congress, as a reasonable implication of the President’s Article II power to “make treaties.” The Court cautioned, however, that the treaty-implementing power could not be used as an excuse for regulating activities that were not “a proper subject of regulation.”
Of course they’re supreme law. But they don’t supersede the rest of the supreme law you silly boy.
I honestly can’t believe people would pay you to read and interpret anything.
Update – I note that Lord Monckton comments below, and bases his view that the treaty would over-ride US domestic law, not on the US Constitution, but on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For some reason, I can’t edit my comment, but if this is the basis, then my attack on his reasoning in this regard as “stupid” obviously cannot be maintained.
Under international law – specifically the Vienna Convention – international law over-rides domestic law. It is no excuse at international law that a domestic law (including a constitution) is inconsistent and prevents certain action, the international law obligation is still binding.
What about Reid v Covert? The judge in that case found that a treaty could *not* override the provisions of the US constitution.
I think the confusion is around what “supreme law” is? I’d see it as being a law that’s entrenched and sits above anything else, like the US Constitution itself.
The Supremacy Clause simply means that federal law, the constitution and treaties all override any *state* laws.
the international law obligation is still binding.
Binding on the state, or the citizen?
In the case of Reid vs Covert, the US was unable to uphold it’s agreement with Britain (to try Mrs Covert in a military court) because that conflicted with the constitution.
Presumably the US was then in breach of the agreement and had to renegotiate.
yes – binding on the state.
I would note that Reid v Colvert related to an executive agreement – a treaty in the normal sense of the word – but not a treaty in the more narrow sense of the Supremacy Clause. I believe that only applies to treaties entered into with the concurrence of the Senate: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
For the important clauses of the Vienna Convention: see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties#PART_III_-_OBSERVANCE.2C_APPLICATION_AND_INTERPRETATION_OF_TREATIES
If you read the judgement in Reid v Covert, it talks about treaties being subject to compliance with the Consitution (and, interestingly, federal law that postdates the treaty).
Thanks for your research Greaeme… it’s a pity the writer/publisher of this article is not practicing investigative journalism – they could have saved them selves embarrassment and potentially held some sort of credibility… but no.. this is not the only error the writer/publisher has made… I’m still looking for an intelligent response to Muncktons presentation – does not matter if he is a scientist or not… Al Gore is not… Al has political agendas & motivations that are to be questioned… anyone up for that investigation? I can assure it won’t take much… just google ‘al gore global warming + hoax, lies, hypocrite – may not be what you want to hear – but to be truly educated – surely you need to look at both sides of the story…
Um, Scott, I think you’ll find that Graeme was **agreeing** with my critique of Monckton’s legal skills. See his first comment.
Rob, I do think that ratification will be an issue for Obama – But Moncktons observations are a healthy warning to the people and the senate of the underlying intention that is going on here.
When Obama chaired UN security council he was the first American president to do so… why is that? I understand it is to do with an oath or law that American Presidents take not to take office of international position while in presidency – if this is true, he is in high treason. I am still investigating this law (perhaps someone knows about this??) – If this is true, it would follow that the character of someone who brazenly goes against his own laws is not playing by the same rules as the rest of us – if he has a role in United Nations now, would it not stand to reason that he is looking to take a solid position for a future Global Government? A government that can really only come about via the UN who is the closest thing to a global government we have…
If Obama can assist the UN to create funding by way of a ‘carbon tax’ and assist in giving it a ‘government’ status (global government) – then he is achieving what no world leader before his has ever achieved… He is moving at such a great pace toward this agenda that it does make me wonder if he would attempt to hoodwink the American people with this treaty. If Obama were to argue that the treaty takes precedence over the US constitution, he may just well win – he has a lot of powerful people behind him now. If there is room for debate over the treaty taking precedence over state law, what chance is there that the debate could extend to US law?
I am watching with an open yet cautious mind as to what is going to come of this – but i do believe that Monckton has raised some fair comments on Obama’s intent… and it is the intent and direction that is now beginning to concern me.
Scott – The UNSC was not chaired by “Barack Obama” personally, it was chaired by “The United States of America” as it has been for one out of every fifteen months since the creation of the UN. It just so happens that the representative of the US who happened actually do the gaveling in that particular meeting was the President, whereas usually it is the Ambassador to the UN or the Secretary of State. The President has the right to represent the US at official meetings wherever he or she likes. There’s no constitutional outrage there.
Rob, what are your thoughts on the forming of a global government? Do you think it could/would happen in the next 5-10 years? – I see that you seem against Monckton, but is there anything wrong with questioning the intent of authority?
Monckton raises cause for good and healthy public debate that has thus far been thwarted by the government and the media. I’m thankful that the internet gives us the ability to view these opinions – and believe that we are being conditioned to think the way we do by means of a controlled media which brings about a false public consensus on a wide range of matters. Obama was a fresh thought 1 year ago… but his agenda does not seem any different from Bush or Clinton… in-fact it seems to accelerate the same agenda’s and no one seems to be denying that.
Scott – To answer your entirely fair question, no I do not believe there will be anything like a world government over the timeframe you specify. I do not agree that world government is part of President Obama’s agenda. Also, I do not agree that there is any kind of media conspiracy to deprive people of the truth about what is happening to them. The media environment is intensely competitive, and media firms would stand to make billions by busting up any attempt at such a conspiracy. Therefore the lack of news about it tells me that the conspiracy does not exist.
I’m genuinely concerned for John Ansell state of mind. He’s sounding shrill and brittle. Please hide your steak knives, in case he drops by unexpectedly.
Now I have taken to not wasting my breath to global warming deniers, because quite simply the debate is over, we need to start debating the best courses of action for mitigation, any other debate is a waste of time and quite frankly dangerous.
Andrei however leaves me to point out a few quick things. He informs us that “the climate is always changing” … This is adressed by the IPCC 4th report (2007) numberous times. A large portion by working group 1 which covers the scientific basis of climate change adresses this very point. However if I may summarise this, current climate change trends our outside the parameters of any natural cyclical trend known.
He also states: “if you think the UN via the IPCC can do anything about it you are seriously misguided”
This too, Andrei, is addressed by essentially a third of the entire IPCC report (one working group of 3) of the aforementioned 4th report by working group 3 of the IPCC entitled: ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’
WG3 looks at numerous ways we can mitigate climate change (this is climate change outside normal fluctuations which were discussed by working group 1) from the individual to the governmental and intergovernmental level, with methods spanning top down and bottom up. Infact, economic instruments they talk about in that report are already running internationally via the Kyoto Protocol as we are in the first trading period for international CO2 emissions (2008-2012)
There is no reason to be cynical that we cannot do anything to mitigate dangerous climate change, infact we can be very optimistic about it and this is why such a large portion of the IPCC report is based on simply that.
Working group 1 Scientific basis, often clicking on the summary for policymakers is an easier read because it is more to the point and less geek speaky.
Working group 3 Mitigation
Isn’t it ironic that “Lord” Monckton talks about “election’ or “democracy’ or “vote’ or “ballot’ when he himself has had zero succesful participation in any of these.
Here are a few scientists who didn’t get the memo about the debate being over.
Anyone who thinks the debate is over is a complete fool
or someone benefitting from the large amounts of government
money being poured into it.
You quote the UN IPCC like that means something. Surely you know that only 50 or so of there 2,500 scientists sign-off on the final document. Hopefully you also know that the head of UN IPCC (Parchuri) is a former railroad engineer. Now that has to give you confidence in their work.
It should be noted that former French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto agreement “the first component of an authentic global governance”.
He wasn’t complaining about it, he saw it as one of the benefits.
Gore himself has used the term global governance in his speeches:
When a couple of greenies like Chirac and Gore are throwing the term “global governance” around, it’s hard to be upset with Monckton for his interpretation of the Copenhagen agreement.
Mark E Mark, please tell me you know the difference between global government and global governance. Please.
Simple explanation Daveo… Global governance is a convenient term for Gore and Chirac to throw about… its a softer term than Global Government and is therefore less threatening when presented that way. However the key point here is that for Global governance to be effected properly would need to be maintained, governed (and one day policed) by a global body that takes authority over any individual national government… a ‘Global Government’.
Obama’s last push for a new bill contained some very concerning laws toward environmental policing – laws that would allow environmental police to ‘without warrant’ inspect a home and deem it environmentally unfit, resulting in daily fines until resolved, and making it ILLEGAL to occupy the premises until the issues are resolved (an easy subject to research for yourself).
This is the concern I have with the governments using the environment as a focus to gain power. Is this what we really want, or do we just want to live in on a planet that is sustainable? They have taken our passion for sustainability and have manipulated it to gain power… and we are taking the bait – hook, line and sinker. I am very much for taking care of the environment – but essentially what we are being presented with – a carbon tax is the ultimate tax to fund the UN – a tax on breathing!! Why are we not focused on the tonnes of chemicals that are STILL being emptied into our oceans? Why have we introduced ‘Green’ lightbulbs that contain mercury? Why are our foods being increasingly polluted with poisonous additives and being genetically modified? Why is Cancer the highest receiver of donations – yet no progress has been made? The governments of this age are not giving us the full picture… so I see it fit to ask questions… why not?
As a simple Wikipedia search will explain to you, global governance simply means the political interaction between states that’s required to solve problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power to enforce compliance.
It’s basically global regulations based on treaties and international cooperation – you know, the kind of thing needed to combat a global problem like climate change.
There’s no reason to think Copenhagen is going to sprout an army and a president and start imposing world government.
Unless, of course, your object is scare people into doing nothing about climate change.
Dave, I respect your right to take that stance.
Whether you or I like it, a global government is being formed now. The UN is it’s basis and Obama is already bustling for position. I am for a sustainable environment, but after doing an open minded research on ‘global warming’ I am convinced that carbon is not the issue, never has been. Infact in the 70’s – some of the same guys touting global warming today were pushing global cooling… what is with that? What i do believe is that the UN desperately needs funding to achieve it’s global government… and copenhagen will give that funding by way of ‘a carbon tax’.
The term Global Governance is a ‘soft sell’ on the concept of a Global Government. The wikipedia article that you are talking of should be alarming to you, but is written in such a way that disarms any threat of the reality of global government. It states that global governance would not be required if a global government is in place. I dis-agree. The UK is already subordinate to the UN on a number of obscure ‘national level’ policies – like meat trade policy with the US (go figure). The UN is a body ‘government like’ body that places itself above national politics – who voted for these guys to even exist? If you’re view of global governance is right, and individual nations agreed on matters together – why is there even a need for the UN? Why do they carry so much weight now? You may think I am wrong (and I really hope that I could be) but when Global Government comes, we will all need to know how it is going to work… is it going to be democratic, communistic, socialistic? Who is going to control it, and what will their agenda be? Don’t we all complain enough that federal government is so far removed from the ‘average’ person – causing laws and taxes to be passed that cripple the little guy? how much worse will it be with a global government?
As I said – I respect your right to take a stance, but it doesn’t hurt to look carefully at both sides of such an intellectual argument.
Can someone interpret/explain the second graph and the acronyms? Genuine question.
One’s a source ground temperatures and the other’s satellite IIRC. Can’t remember which is which.
Regarding your comments under the heading “delusional pompous fool”,
you make several statements that are completely false and offer absolutley no
evidence to support your position.
A. Lord Monckton has never ever claimed to be a climate scientist. I’ve attended two of his programs live and watched many more on video. He goes out of his way to point out that he is not a climate scientist. Please post your evidence that he has made this claim or remove it immediately.
B. Again, he has never ever claimed to be a scientist only a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Either produce evidence that he has claimed to be a scientist or remove this claim immediately.
C. He did not say he was a nobel laureate. After he made a correction to an IPCC report a friend sent him a fake nobel prize as a joke. Monckton has made this clear each time I’ve seen him speak.
The following links are a collection of Monckton videos. If you watch the April 09 Texas A&M Presentations you will see that he states the Nobel Prize sent to him was a joke. He also makes it very clear he is not a scientist.
He has never claimed to be a voting member of the house of lords. His title Lord Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchly is legit. You might want to try and investigate things a little more before you make such statements.
Again, I’ve studied Monckton’s works extensively. He states that the rate of malaria deaths before the ban was around 50,000 per year. That hardly is claiming malaria deaths would have been zero without the ban.
As for his suggestion on preventing the spread of aids, it would have worked and millions would have been saved. The world on many occassions has dealt with pandemics this way. In fact, colleges at this very moment have quarantined entire floors of dorm buldings to isolate H1N1. Monkon actually points out that this was not done in the case of AIDS for politically correct reasons which I should think I do not have to spell out for you.
Your attempt to disprove his science reads like a science fair project put together hastily the night before it was due. You might want to familiarize yourself with his work before posting similar claims.
“Monkon actually points out that this was not done in the case of AIDS for politically correct reasons which I should think I do not have to spell out for you.”
Go on spell them out. I’m guessing you don’t want to because it’s kind of hard to identify HIV carriers in order to isolate them. Testing everyone would be too expensive, and stupid anyway, so I’m going to go out on a limb and guess there would be some sort of profiling involved. So at this point the plan seems to be , “put the homo’s in camps”.
Rob, I have to agree with Mark… I would still love to hear a logical, content driven opposition to Monckton, and I can’t find it in the above article. Monckton has raised a number of very valid points and ‘poo poo’ him without proper research is plainly amateur. I have still got a lot of research ahead of me, and do not claim to understand everything that is going on here – but I have seen some very concerning issues raised, and I intend to investigate them properly. I will say that the more I look at the ‘climate deniyers’ argument, the more I see holes in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient truth”.
I would love for Monckton to be wrong. It would mean the world we live in is as we all expect it should be. However, until I see a strong, logical, sensible explanations in rebuttal for Muncktons claims – I remain in doubt. (and poorly researched ‘poo pooing’ does not help my understanding). Go back and do this properly – you will be a hero if you do! Take the key points that Monckton makes, research them, look at all the angles (if you like it or not) and be objective in your debunk of his work if it is possible. This would hold a lot more weight than the article above
Scott Boswell, you won’t ever get a strong, logical, sensible rebuttle of Monckton’s claims because he has exposed the AGW hoax for what it is. Game over.
Good post and a thorough demolition job on the loony’s work.
Rob Salmond, who is not a climate scientist, rants ad hominem at some length about a recent address by me to 1000 citizens of St. Paul, Minneapolis (Google “Monckton video’ to find it). I shall ignore the personal insults with which his posting is larded.
The Treaty of Copenhagen
Salmond says there is no draft Treaty of Copenhagen. There is. It is almost 200 pages long. You can read the text at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.
Salmond says the draft is not finalized, so that no one can say what form it will eventually take. Well, yes, it is a draft. That is why I drew attention to the proposals in it that would create an unelected world “government’ with powers to control all global markets, to inflict huge levies on wealthier countries, and to intervene directly in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, over the heads of elected governments and all in the name of addressing the non-problem that is “global warming’.
Salmond says the draft contains no “principles associated with communism’. Yet the proposed world “government’, long an aim of international communism, will not be elected, just as communist regimes are not elected; and it will have absolute power over all financial and other markets i.e. control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, just as communist regimes do.
Salmond says Obama has no sympathy with Communism. He has, however, nationalized his nation’s financial institutions; debased its currency by rampant inflation; proposed to nationalize health care; diverted, via the stimulus package, vast sums to Communist organizations; appointed numerous Communists to senior posts in his Administration; and proposed to inflict upon his people the largest tax increase ever imposed on any nation.
Salmond says treaties do not supersede the US Constitution. However, by the Vienna Convention on International Treaties, to which the US is a signatory, the terms of a treaty prevail over any domestic law.
Salmond says the US can unilaterally pull out of any treaty. However, no nation can thus act, except in bad faith, unless the treaty makes provision for signatories to resile. The Copenhagen Treaty makes no such provision.
The economics of “global warming’
Salmond says my costing of the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill is inappropriate because I did not consider the climate benefits. There are no climate benefits, because, as my presentation made clear, there is no climate problem or, if there is, humankind has practically nothing to do with it.
Salmond takes me to task for mentioning that canceling the next century’s imagined warming would take 1360 years and cost $250 trillion if the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill were adopted. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency has said that the bill, even if implemented in full, would have practically no effect on the climate, and the White House has admitted that the annual cost of the Bill will be at least $180 billion, while the US Treasury says $300-400 billion. Do the math.
Salmond says I take no account of what other nations might do to mitigate imagined “global warming’. Yes, I do. Here’s the math. Every six months we push up the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2 ppmv through emitting 15 billion tons of CO2. Multiply this by the 468 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration this century that the UN predicts on scenario A2 and the UN is implicitly predicting we’ll emit 7 trillion tons of CO2 this century, during which it explicitly predicts temperature will rise by 7 F. So we’d have to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission just to forestall 1 F of future warming. But 1 trillion tons is 33 years’-worth of global carbon emissions. So we’d have to shut down almost the entire global economy for a third of a century and fling ourselves back to the Stone Age, but without even the ability to light fires in our caves, just to forestall 1 F of “global warming’. The cost is manifestly disproportionate to the benefit, particularly since there is no “global warming’ problem anyway.
The science of “global warming’
Salmond says science cannot conclusively prove anything. Actually, it can. The Theorem of Pythagoras, for instance, is definitively proven. So is the relationship between radiative flux and temperature at the emitting surface of a planetary body. We now know by direct measurement that the relationship between changes in surface temperature and changes in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is entirely different from what the expensive models of the UN had been programmed to guess. From that measurement, which confirms a string of previous measurements published in the last couple of years, it is simple to demonstrate that most outgoing radiation is escaping to outer space just as it always did, and cannot therefore cause warming down here. So the manmade warming this century, even if we do nothing, will be just 1 F, not the 7 F predicted by the UN. End of scare. Get used to it. The science has moved on, and the UN’s reports are now out of date.
Salmond says if you find evidence inconsistent with a hypothesis, it does not automatically follow that the hypothesis is false. In fact, however, the scientific method operates in such a way that if a hypothesis is disproven it fails. The “global warming’ hypothesis has now been disproven.
Salmond says that my choice of 2002 as the start-date for evaluating the least-squares linear-regression trend on global mean surface temperature is mere cherry-picking. However, during my presentation I demonstrated the rates of temperature change over the past 550 billion years; over the past 450,000 years; over the past 11,400 years; over the past 1000 years; over the past 150 years; over the past 15 years; and over the past 9 years i.e. since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 (not 2002, as Salmond incorrectly assumes, having lifted from another Left-leaning blog a graph in which I had on another occasion demonstrated the dramatic effect of the phase-transition in the global temperature record that had occurred late in 2001). I correctly stated during my Minnesota presentation that the rate of warming between 1975 and 1995 had been identical with the rate of warming between 1860 and 1880, and between 1910 and 1940, so that there is no evidence of any anthropogenic effect at all in the global-temperature record. I also correctly stated that since 1995 i.e. for 15 years there has been no statistically-significant “global warming’, and that since the turn of the millennium there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling.
Salmond, quoting the same Leftist blog, says I incorrectly characterized the IPCC’s temperature predictions as linear. However, the IPCC finds the relationship between change in CO2 concentration and change in global temperature to be logarithmic, and predicts, again on the A2 scenario, that CO2 concentration will rise exponentially over the whole of the coming century. It follows that the change in temperature that it predicts is in reality linear. However, since global temperature has not been rising as expected (or, for 15 years, at all), the IPCC without altering its fundamental, logarithmic CO2-vs-temperature formula or its fundamental prediction of an exponential increase in CO2 concentration this century has detuned its own graph in defiance of these fundamental points, so as to make it look as though its predictions are in line with observed reality when, on the math, they are not.
Salmond says I say the IPCC “claimed to predict the 2003 global average temperature with a margin for error of only ±0.02 C’. In fact, my graph commencing in 2002 took five of the IPCC’s own CO2-to-temperature formulae and its own prediction of CO2 concentration increase, and simply calculated what the rise in temperature would be in each instance. Take the central estimate. The UN imagines that warming of 4.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration will occur. Thus, since CO2 concentration in 2002 was around 375 ppmv, and is rising at 2 ppmv/year, the temperature increase over the year will be 4.7 ln(377/375). Do the math. The entire increase in temperature predicted for 2002-2003 works out as about 0.025 C.
Salmond says, without explanation, that I got the UN’s predictions of CO2 increase “shockingly wrong’. However, the UN does indeed predict an exponential increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 836[730,1020] ppmv in 2100, exactly as my CO2 graph shows. Once again, the UN has detuned its exponential projection for the next few years to try to bring its prediction more closely into line with observed reality, which is that CO2 concentration for an entire decade has been rising not exponentially but in a straight line towards just 575 ppmv in 2100. This trend, if continued, would require the halving of all of the UN’s “global-warming’ forecasts for the present century.
Salmond says I should not have cited the study that showed that not one of 539 papers on “global climate change’ in recent years provides any evidence for any catastrophic effect from any anthropogenic influence on any part of the climate. My point during the talk, however, was that the UN’s climate panel claims that it faithfully represents the “consensus’ in the peer-reviewed literature. In this respect, as in many others, it is blindingly obvious that the UN does not represent the scientific “consensus’, which, on the evidence of the study I cited, is unanimously to the effect that no catastrophe will occur as a result of our puny influence on the climate. The presence of the entire climatosphere, as opposed to its absence, causes just 18 C of warming. Even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2 concentration growth, we shall convert less than 1/2000 of the atmosphere by combustion from oxygen to CO2, and the UN imagines that this will cause 4 C of warming. That predicted warming is equivalent to more than one-fifth of the warming exercised by the entire existing atmosphere. How sensible is that? Quite right it isn’t. We now have a stream of peer-reviewed papers showing that the warming will be more like 0.5 C, and, in the light of very recent papers such as that by Kimoto (2009), even this could turn out to be a very large exaggeration.
Mr. Salmond says I say the UN “ignores’ the mediaeval warm period. In fact, I said the UN falsely tried to abolish it by a lamentable and continuing series of statistical tricks, the latest of which was to lift a graph from Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any knave can edit and any halfwit can credit, and to use it as though it were from a peer-reviewed source. I also stated, correctly and can provide evidence if required that, once again, the scientific consensus is not as the UN presents it. Some 740 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries over the past 20 years have contributed to papers in the peer-reviewed literature providing evidence that the mediaeval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. Live with it we could grow grapes in Scotland in the Middle Ages and we certainly can’t do that now. The Viking burial ground at Hvalsey in south-western Greenland is still under permafrost to this day, but it certainly was not under permafrost in the Middle Ages, when the bodies were buried.
Further errors by the hapless Salmond
Salmond says I had claimed to be a climate scientist when I was not. I made no such claim.
Salmond says I have published nine papers on climate science at my own think tank. In fact, the think tank in question, http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, has published some 75 papers by me on climate science and economics.
Salmond says I do not have a peer-reviewed publication in any scientific journal on any topic. Readers may like to visit the website of Physics and Society, which published a peer-reviewed paper by me entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered in July 2008. In that paper, I concluded that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentration would be less than 1 C, and would therefore be harmless and beneficial. A stream of recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature has confirmed that this conclusion is correct.
Salmond says I claim to be a Nobel laureate. I made no such claim. However, I told the story of how, after I had given a physics-faculty seminar on climate sensitivity a couple of years ago, the Professor of Physics had presented me with a Nobel prize pin, saying that my exposure of the UN’s bureaucrats’ attempt to insert into the 2007 climate assessment report of an incorrectly-summed table of figures that had not been in the final draft signed off by the scientists was worthier of a share in the prize than Al Gore’s serially-inaccurate slide presentation.
Salmond says I claim to be a member of the House of Lords. Having proved my succession to my late beloved father to the entire satisfaction of the Committee of Privileges of the House, I am indeed entitled to call myself Lord Monckton. However, I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the right to sit or vote in the House: that right was removed from my father and nearly all hereditary peers in 1999. Salmond is no more an expert on the peerage of the United Kingdom than he is on the science or economics of “global warming’.
Salmond says I claim that the ban on DDT four decades ago was alone responsible for all malaria deaths since. I have never made any such claim: the deaths were caused by the falciparum parasite. However, I correctly pointed out that before the DDT ban annual worldwide deaths from malaria had fallen to just 50,000 and that after the ban the deaths jumped to 1 million a year, and remained so for 40 years. I also cited Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization, who, on 15 September 2006, announced the lifting of the worldwide malaria ban, saying: “In this field, politics usually comes first and science second. We will now take a stand on the science and the data.’
Salmond says I had recommended imprisoning all AIDS sufferers until they died. I had never recommended any such thing. The correct public health response when confronted with a new, fatal, incurable infection is to identify and isolate all carriers as quickly as possible, so as to prevent transmission of the infection. Twenty years ago, at the request of the leading HIV researcher at the US Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases, whom I had consulted about the spread of HIV, I wrote articles in two newspapers suggesting that this customary public-health measure should be implemented urgently, or tens of millions would die worldwide, mostly in poorer countries. Pressure-groups prevented this necessary public-health response, and 25 million people died. 40 million more are infected. Most of these could have been spared if the right decision had been taken. The HIV episode is an excellent example of the importance of getting the science right and then implementing the correct policy. Otherwise, the result is millions of needless deaths. The “global warming’ scare not “global warming’ itself, for there has not been any for a decade and a half is already killing millions by starvation arising from the doubling of food prices caused by the biofuel scam, which has taken one-third of the food-growing land area of the US and other countries out of food production in just three years. Once again, a more thoughtful approach, bearing in mind the consequences of our policy-making for poor people in faraway countries of which we know too little, would have been appropriate but was not taken.
Finally, let me summarize the current state of climate science as far as it relates to the “global warming’ question. The UN imagines that the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration will be a warming of around 1 C, but that various temperature feedbacks operate to raise the warming to around 3.3 C. However, recent papers have established that the water-vapor feedback is nothing like as strong as the UN had believed, and that the cloud-albedo feedback actually causes cooling rather than amplifying the original warming. As a result, we now know not only that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause less than 1 C of warming; we also now know why. The science is in, the truth is out, the models were off, and the scare is over.
– Monckton of Brenchley
You ain’t no sissy cos you’re still working for Exxon out of 53rd & 3rd.
heh, I knew the toffs were renting out their stately homes and showing the plebs around on the weekends, but i didn’t know they were so short on dosh they rented out their heids and shilled for wh’ever wanted a titled nonce to add some credibilty.
Lordy mate, don’t you think you should squeeze some precious bodily fluid lingo into your ranting. I know it’s a cliche and all, but it’s just not the same without it. And those damned leftists are coming after your cum whether you’re too afraid to say so or not. The truth is out there.
That was a mature response pb
Thank you Lord Monckton of Brenchley! I applaud your focused and detailed response! It reveals the poor research of the author as I have stated in other replies to this post.
Rob – you have certainly gained attention here! This would be a great opportunity for you to reply (as Lord Monckton has) to each point with detailed, intelligent, researched responses. As I have stated previously – I would love it if Lord Monckton was wrong… but every time I research the points he makes, I am left with no realistic opposition.
If you can help – great! My fear is that not only is Lord Monckton right, but the underlying intentions are going to be more devastating to our global way of life! What is more – I doubt you could handle this task… Al Gore won’t even take up the task in public debate with Lord Monckton & Al knows politics, and Al is well backed by scientists of his choice.
I say bring on the real debate! LORD MONCKTON V’s AL GORE!!!
Al’s had a few years to have his say… Monckton says it’s a lie and is willing to prove it – Al needs to defend his honour on this issue! Lord Monckton is plainly calling Al Gore’s ‘inconvenient truth’ a hoax and a lie. He is also backed by the environmental scientific community. If Al Gore has as much passion for his cause as he displays – then he needs to defend his point intelligently as Monckton is doing. If Al does not take up Moncktons challenge, then as a free thinking person, I can only conclude that Monckton is right, and Al Gore and the climate change issue is a hoax… More than ever before, this is a cause for public debate as it involves the lives of generations to come environmentally, politically and financially and on a global scale… to blindly go down Gore’s path with results of a global tax and a new ‘government’ handling global matters would be irresponsible for any government or people to allow without proper scrutiny.
What worries me more is the intent here… Monckton rightly points out the beginnings of communism and I fear that the American people have very little position of power left… If unemployment rises any further, and the bottom falls out of the US economy the people will be left with no choice at all. Meanwhile a Global government could be forming without public involvement communistic rule in the USA is a potential reality.
just another observation when going back and watching inconvenient truth… in the first few minutes Al Gore makes a firm statement… Kilimanjaro will have no snow in 10 years… with all of his scientific backing, you think he would only make those sorts of statements if it were clean cut… the real truth is that many photo’s today of Kilimanjaro give evidence of MORE snow than when Als video was released in 2006… so does it get colder before it gets hotter? How much of what Al is saying is remotely correct?
You have now received responses from me and Lord Monckton himself, yet you haven’t published either one. I hope Lord Monckton takes legal action against you and I wil encourage him to do so. Meanwhile, I’ll publish a response to your error filled piece of writing on my own and other websites.
[lprent: Don’t be a total dork..
The site has policy about the number of links in comments to stop moronic spambots from dropping multi-link comments into the system. It looked at your comment and whatshisname’s comment, decided that they were probably spam because of the links, and put them aside for a human to look at them. That happens when one of the moderators gets around to it, which is usually pretty slow on the weekends.
If you want to initiate a Streisand effect, then be my guest. The first problem is exactly where you’re going to start it. ]
Caught in the spam filter. Settle down, sport.
It is easy to establish that Monckton is not a member of the House of Lord. Just go to the House of Lord’s website for a list of members.
He is an hereditary peer, ie he got the title when his dad died, but these days very few hereditary peers have a seat in the Lords, and in fact Irish Peers never did have a seat in London (theirs was in Dublin and got abolished in 1800)
That he should claim to be a member of the H of L does damage his credibility.
Because it is simply not true.
He still is entitled to the title Lord Monckton.
I would challenge you to post one link to a
writing or an interview where he claims to be
a member of the house of lords. It’s never
happened. Not once. Rob is going after
Monckton for things Monckton never said.
Those of us familiar with his speeches
and written works know that he has never claimed
to be a scientist, climate scientist or voting member
of the house. He also have never claimed to have
received a Nobel Prize. The video links I posted
demonstrate that he made it clear that it was a joke
gift from a friend. These groundless attackes instead
of addressing the science is typical for the left. One
can only wonder why such vetting is not applied to
Whooop-deee-fuckin-doodle-dee-doo !! Tell me, is he selling t-shirts on his Exxon sponsored a href= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/20/climate-change-denial-monckton>tour of the US?
And, while you’re threatening legal action and promising to do your own write up, will you also be retracting your comment that Lord Monkeyton never claimed to be in the House of Lards? I draw your attention to the following statement:
Thanks BLiP. Written evidence that the man is a shameless liar.
There is no wriggle room for interpretation or hair splitting here; either you are a member of the House of Lords or not. In the document, BLiP linked to, published under Monckton’s own name and addressed to the US Senate, he states that he is… while on this very thread he states that he is not.
Credibility = Zero
WIN! How did the idiot think he could get away with that one?
Hopefully my reponse will be published in time, and then I can post FAIL!
Do try and read the material being linked to in any discussion, facts are always useful.
Afraid not BLiP, the member of the Upper House referenced in your link is actually Lord Lawson of Blaby, a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, [who] has called for the outright abolition of the UN’s climate-change panel.
Was your post an intentional distortion or did you just ‘google’ for something that might back up a position. Either way, a very basic reading of the paper that you chose to link to simply demonstrates that you have nothing.
Please withdraw the link or leave this post beneath.
Nice try Hugh, but you are wrong.
Lord Lawson is mentioned only once in the document, on p4, calling on the UN to to something.
The paragraph we are discussing is on p7, in which the subject of the sentence calls on US Senators, not the UN, to do something, namely to “either withdraw what you have written or resign.”
The big clue at to the subject of that paragraph comes in the very next paragraph, which starts: “I challenge you to withdraw or resign because…” The “I” indicates that the writer of the letter is the subject of the previous paragraph (which contains the fake claim to legislative status). That person is, of course, Lord Monckton.
Mark G. I am so shallow that I can’t take seriously anything that the Hooterville Gazette says. Found a fact tho. londo says that Mockton isn’t the House of Lords. I’ll go back to reading PG Wodehouse, he was so great at writing about the predilections of the nobility. I’ll leave the climate change argument which adds to the greenhouse effect by creating more heat than light.
Thank you for the email Blip. Nice of you to bring it to my attention.
Lord member does not claim to be a voting member of the house. A search of my comments regarding Monckton on the net will prove that I too have never claimed he is a voting member. In my haste, I left the word “voting” out of the most immediate post above. One only has to visit a little higher up on this page to see that I stated he has never claimed to be a “voting” member of the house of lords. I stand by my comment that he is entitled to use the title Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley.
Blip based on the fact that I use the term “voting” member in a previous post on this page, you knew the second post was a simple omission error. Why would I state it two different ways on the same page? Given your inability to defend the author of this ridiculus piece on the false scientist, climate scientist, and Nobel Lauriate claims, you went after a minor typing error. Oh well, I guess you take what you can get. As I stated in my reply remail to you, I do appreciate you bringing the error to my attention. Now perhaps you can bring the three erros I’ve just mentioned to Rob Salmond’s attention. Unless you have links proving Monckton has ever made any of these claims?
This a quote from a post Monckton left on the Deltoid blog.
Hopefully it will clear up his postion on this issue of his title.
“Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House.”
Blipsta, In your next post to me, I’d like you to provide links proving that I’m wrong and Rob Salmond is right about the following statements in his post.
Salmond claims Monckton has claimed to be a scientist – I Say de Hasn’t
Salmond claims Monckton claims to be a climate scientist – I say he Hasn’t
Salmond claims Moncton claims to be a Novel Lauriate – I say he hasn’t.
Again, here are some links that might help you in your quest for the truth:
Just out of curiosity, will you be writing Mr. Salmond when you figure out that he is wrong on these three issues? It’s the least you can do since you were kind enough to write me.
– Mark E. Gillar
Squirm, little denialist, squirm.
Here’s what Lord Monkeytune says, as per above:
OK so there’s a point of clarification needed.
Lordy paints himself as a “member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature“, when writing to members of the US senate, whom he righty describes as “members of the Upper House of the United States legislature“.
He is obviously entitled to use his, err, title, as lord of whatever-on-sea, with whatsoever that confers in terms of British getting-your-face-in-the-society-pages and having Americans go all weak at the knees in revolution remorse, (or whatever it is that makes them go all giggly and differential at the merest whiff of the ermine).
He lost his voting status in the UK upper house in the nineties, (and not before time). He introduced himself to the US Senate, in 2006, using exactly the same language to describe himself as he used to describe those US Senators, voting members all.
Now I neither know, nor care, if hereditary toffs retained the right to describe themselves as members of the house of Lords after they lost all reason to be there.
It cannot be denied however, that in his note to the US senate he is claiming equivalence with those senators through the use of the exact same phrasing to describe their respective roles.
It may well be the case that the Brits allowed these clowns to continue to describe their aristocratic arses as being of some relevance. The British public do enjoy a good laugh at these guys expense.
Likewise, it would be completely unsurprising if said arses were unaware of same and thought that they were in fact still members worthy of the description member of the upper house of the UK legislature and equivalent to US senators.
That US citizens think aristocrats, with no power, voting rights in the upper house, or relevance, can equate themselves to US Senators however, is a surprise.
See my other post on this thread which points out why the quote about Lord Monckton apparently claiming to be a member of the House of Lords is inaccurate.
The quote is actually about Lord Lawson of Blaby (referenced at the top of page four of this PDF: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf which also is the source of the quote).
No RedLogix, you can actually be a non-voting member.
After a quick google on the topic (and reform of the House of Lords is a long and fascinating one)… it’s apparent:
1. Non-voting members have no political power or relevance and are essentially a rump hang-over from various stages of reform.
2. People referencing their membership of the House as non-voting members are usually scrupulous to be clear about their exact status. eg here.
Why would anyone but a pompous toff call themselves a Lord anyway? What’s wrong with good old “Chris Monckton”?
It’s enough to make me take up knitting Daveo. Clickety click, clickety click.
“The debate on climate change is over. Let the name calling begin”
Mark E Gillar wrote:
A. Lord Monckton has never ever claimed to be a climate scientist. …
B. Again, he has never ever claimed to be a scientist…
C. He did not say he was a nobel laureate. …
Mark E Gillar is wrong wrong wrong. Monckton writes of himself:
Monckton’s “science” is as bogus as his credentials. Shame on you both for spreading this dangerous nonsense.
SInce an emeritus professor of physics doesn’t have the authority to arbitrarily give out Nobel Peace prizes, it’s obviously a joke.
Unlike you, I’ve met Monckton, corresponded with him ,interviewed him, attend two of his live presentations and watched many more on tape. He has always made it clear that the Nobel Prize pin given to him by a friend was a joke. Are you so lazy that I’m going to have to isolate the video, post it, and then post the link here of Moncton saying it’s a joke? If you’re that lazy, I’ll do it. Just let me know.
I”m still waiting for a video or written works of Monckton that demonstrate him claiming he’s actually won a Nobel Prize, is a scientist, or is a climate scientist. Blip is working overtime right now trying to find that. Having to admit Monckton is innocent and fellow alarmist Rob Salmond was less that accurate on this one would be too much for him. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on Blip to produce the evidence. It doesn’t exist. Moncton has never said those things.
Rob, if you’d like to step up and actually back up your claims, it would be appreciated. You’ve been rather silent since putting out this piece. Then again, knowing that Monckton is keeping and eye on you and that litigation could be possible if you’re not careful would understandably make most people a little reticent.
Do any of you people (beside Rob) have the cojones to use your own name? It doesn’t exactly suggest a strong belief in your positions when you hide behind a nic.
By the way, if you Al Gore Kool-Aid drinking alarmists want to investigate a lie, Gore has suggested strongly that the sea level could rise 20 feet. I can,t find that prediction
in any of the UN IPCC reports. Does that mean Gore is telling a lie? You decide.
One final thought. This won’t be debated forever. Ultimately, history will make alarmists out to be fools and or opportunists that many of us already know they are.
Mark E. Gillar
Proud AGW Skeptic
By the way, if you Al Gore Kool-Aid drinking alarmists want to investigate a lie, Gore has suggested strongly that the sea level could rise 20 feet. I can,t find that prediction in any of the UN IPCC reports. Does that mean Gore is telling a lie? You decide.
A few months ago I attended a lecture given by Prof Tim Naish. An account of it is here.
Tim Naish is regarded as one of the world’s foremost authorities in the history of sea level changes. My daughter, who is a recent earth science post-graduate from a closely associated institution, confirms for me his pre-eminent stature.
I do suggest you have a read of the post, but just to emphasise, here is the concluding message:
The problem you face Mr Gillar, is that when you claim to discredit established climate science, you are telling us that tens of thousands of individual researchers, often with secure tenure, from hundreds of different institutions world-wide, and many of whom have spent years in the field, like Tim Naish, gathering the critical data and information on which this whole science is based… you are telling us that they are all either incompetent fools or lying conspirators. Such a charge is utterly divorced from reality… it is simply not possible.
Many of these scientists are working very independently from each other; their lines of research approach the AGW issue from exceedingly diverse directions, working with completely independent data sources and hypothesises. Yet inexorably the result of all this cross-checking is pointing to the same conclusion and as the science has matured over the last decade the result has become more certain not less.
On the other hand I can visit any number of respected sources on the net which conclusively demonstrate that Monckton is a fraudulent liar who simply makes up fake data. Frankly Mr Gillar I have nothing but contempt for both you and Monckton.
As for your insane legal threats; they are the final, irrefutable evidence that your argument is utterly bankrupt… and you know it.
I have replied to you by email with further evidence of Lord Monckton’s phony Nobel claims, pending a follow up post I have already submitted to The Standard for their consideration.
Thank you for the email. I have posted a response video on YouTube which
should explain my postion. I was in attendance when this video was recorded.
If you’re short on time, you may begin at the 1:20 mark, but I’d suggest watching the
entire clip to get a feel for the context within which the comment was made.
In this very short clip, Monckton calls the Nobel Prize Pin given to him by a friend a “joke” and describes himself as ” a layman with no qualifications in science”.
This presentation was made some 5.5 months or so before the MN presentation to which you sent me a link. Rob, you must know that it would be crazy for anyone to claim that they had received a Nobel Prize when they had not? It is so easily checked. Monckton may have a very dry sense of humor, but as my link proves, he freely admits that the whole thing about the Nobel Pin is a joke.
I hope The Standard publishes your follow up. I further hope that you address the comments former French President Chirac and Al Gore made about global governance.
I also hope you produce evidence that Monckton has claimed to be a scientists and climate scientists as I have already produced videographic evidence that he claims to be a layman with no qualifications in science.
Note to Staff:
This comment does does contain a link, so I’ll check back in four or five days and see if it’s been posted. Please take your time. I wouldn’t want to rush anyone.
[Note to Mark:
This is a blog, it doesn’t have staff. Your previous comments have all been published on the day you submitted them (NZ time). Implying otherwise does you no credit]
[lprent: If he wasn’t either technically illiterate or just plain lazy (or just read the FAQ), then Mark could have not used raw links. Then it’d have gotten through the spam checker without problems. But no, like any true paranoid, it is always someone else’s fault…. Reminds me of Whale.. ]
Mark E. Gillar
Note to Staff:
A blog doesn’t have “staff”, just authors (I am one). As you can see, it got posted.
Monckton calls the Nobel Prize Pin given to him by a friend a “joke’
The fact that Monckton admits at some times that the Nobel is a joke does not in any way mean that he hasn’t at other times tried to pass it off as real (probably started on the “joke” line after he got caught out).
See here for example. r0b at 9:50pm says “I am a Pulitzer prize winning journalist!”. Someone at 9:51pm “Oh no you’re not!”. r0b at 9:52pm “My Pulitzer prize isn’t real hah hah only joking”. Doesn’t make the initial claim any less of a lie, does it?
Here in this thread you claimed that Monckton never said he was a member of the House of Lords. This was shown to be a lie and your weasel worded excuse was you meant he never said he was a “voting member” (like anyone knows or cares about the distinction). You also claimed Monckton never said he was a Nobel prize winner. When this too was shown to be a lie your weasel worded excuse was that he was only joking (when the context in his very non humorous bio shows that this was not the case).
In short, you’re a serial liar, trying to cover for a serial liar. Monckton lies about climate science and about his credentials. You lie about Monckton. You both should be ashamed of yourselves.
— r0b (not Rob Salmond)
Thank you for your reply and response. Certainly I agree with your statement:
“Rob, you must know that it would be crazy for anyone to claim that they had received a Nobel Prize when they had not? It is so easily checked.”
Look at the link I sent you (copied below) to Lord Monckton’s Jakarta Post article in December 2007. You will see that is exactly what he claimed. A Nobel Prize. With no hint of humor at all.
If, as you say, it is crazy for any person to falsely claim a Nobel Prize, and you have been provided with strong evidence that Lord Monckton falsely claimed a Nobel Prize, what does that logically tell you about Lord Monckton?
Did you bother to watch the video to which I sent you a link?
You did hear Monckton say that it was joke didn’t you?
BTW, since Gore shared his Nobel Prize with the UN IPCC, Moncton has in the past joked that since he contributed to the 2007 Report by way of a correction, he should have shared in the prize also. This too is just a joke.
“With no hint of humor at all”, hence the term “dry” humor Rob.
Did you notice he also said that he was not a scientist let alone a climate scientist.
Do you have video of him saying something different? Do you have a written work
of him saying something different? If not, you should at least correct that part of
your original work.
You still haven’t as far as I know commented on the fact that Gore and Chirac made
the “global governance” connection to climate change legislation long before Monckton.
Are Gore and Chirac allowed to say it, but not Monkton? If so, why?
In summary, You have not owned up to the fact that you have no evidence of him claiming to be a scientist. You have not commented on the Gore or Chirac quotes or the fact that our clips are somewhat at odds with each other for my clip makes it clear that the whole Nobel Pin joke is just that, a joke. Why would Monckton make it clear that he was joking in April when speaking in TX and then try and pretend he has received a Nobel Prize when speaking in MN? If one were going to try and make such a false claim, one would at the very least have to be consistent.
One question, that I’d like answered: Gore has made numerous outrageous claims about melting ice caps and twenty foot increases in sea level. Are you interested in the truth only when climate skeptics are speaking or do you think Gore should have to tell the truth too? Since I haven’t been able to locate any articles where you’ve applied your keen nose for the truth to Gore, I was just wondering. As I’ve suggested before, you only seem interested in reviewing comments by skeptics. Alarmists like Gore obviously get a free pass from you. There’s a word for people who apply a double standard. Starts with an H, can’t remember what it is.
Your zeal to discredit a skeptic has impaired your good judgement. Unless you produce strong evidence of your claims soon, I’d suggest you write a correction to your original article.
Yes, I watched the video you sent me, and I happily acknowledge that Lord Monckton made the joke clear **on that occasion**.
Did you read Monckton’s Jakarta Post article that I pointed you to? Can you point me to the part **in that article** where he made the joke clear, even just a little bit? How about in the YouTube video I pointed you to? If you cannot find the joke in those publications, then my claim about Monckton falsely claiming a Nobel Prize stands and Monckton is thus shown up as a charlatan.
By the way, your questions of “why would Lord Monckton make the joke plain some times but not others’ are good ones. But given the very obvious evidence I have shown you, I suggest they are questions you should ask Lord Monckton rather than me.
I am glad to see you have basically given up defending Lord Monckton’s falsehoods about his status in the House of Lords.
In relation to claims that he is a scientist and a climate scientist to boot, here are a selection of quotes from Lord Monckton’s recent video presentation (times in parentheses):
“In the technical language that we climatologists like to use ‘ (28:15)
“Being a dull, boring scientific person, I checked the satellite records ‘ (29:45)
“So I checked. I’m boring that way, I keep checking things. That is what scientists do. That is what Al-Haitham said we should do. I check â€˜em.’ (50:30)
(Parenthetically, I will concede that this lie by Monckton is not quite as blatant as the others. In that same spirit of compromise and goodwill, I suggest you explicitly concede that I’ve demonstrated Monckton’s very obvious lies about Nobel Prizes and the House of Lords.)
Regarding your various claims about Al Gore, I do not remember ever saying that he had everything right, so I do not understand why you think it is my job to defend his every utterance. But since you asked, no I do not believe everything in “An Inconvenient Truth.’ I think you’ll agree that there is a large predictive gulf between “An Inconvenient Truth’ and “Apocalypse, No!’. My view lies in that intermediate range, as do the views of the IPCC and the views of the large majority of relevant scientists.
Regarding talk of “global governance,’ I suggest you read up about the term. You will find that it does not mean the same thing as “world government,’ which is what Lord Monckton was scaring people about.
Finally Mark, in relation to your accusation: “There’s a word for people who apply a double standard. Starts with an H, can’t remember what it is,’ I suggest you look in a mirror and read from right to left. The word will be on your forehead.
Chris Monckton : ” There are no climate benefits, because, as my presentation made clear, there is no climate problem or, if there is, humankind has practically nothing to do with it.”
You cannot simultaneously prove both of those. From making that statement alone it shows you clearly have no credibility.
And you have never submitted a corrigendum to one of your papers that have been submitted for publication ?
Interesting article by Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen, were he points out non scientists ( Like Salmond ) seem to have taken up Scientific Advocacy.
[lprent: see other comment. Here is an HTML link to the same thing from Google. Any more of these and I’ll just start zapping. The only reason I haven’t is because at least the twerp put in links. ]
It has been interesting finding out who Richard Lindzen is and he does propose some significantly interesting ideas. However, there is a big BUT in the wings here. He has chosen to use his history of scientific research to carve himself a niche as somewhat of a doom naysayer. Fair enough. He is making a name for himself and using some at least relatively sound science for his arguments.
However, this is where it all falls down. The real point that most should be concerned with is not “Is climate change real and, if so, what do we do about it?” but “If climate change is a reality what should we be doing now so that we aren’t left wishing we had done it sooner?” There is no use losing our heads, and a sane voice for the Nay of the argument is always appreciated.
Yet while the discussions and the science continues, do we want to actually risk hitting the potentially devestating point of a positive feedback cycle from which there is no return? There is a lot of business to be made from green technology and research and as a whole we, the people of the world, need to work together better than we have been in pulling each other up to the same levels. The excessive prosperity that 3rd world nations keep shooting for is all a mirage generated mostly in financial institutions that like to play low risk high gain gambles with other peoples money.
Brain ran out of steam there… couldn’t come up with any concluding remarks. However from what I have seen of your posting zelda, it would be nice to see some active critical thinking happening rather than just block copy-pasting from various sites.
Congratulations on learning Ctrl+C followed by Ctrl+V. Next comes the difficult part.
until now, you´ve still not answered in depth on the reply of Lord Monckton.
BTW: i´ll stay at home today to read your answer because when i go out on the streets today, i might just have an accident.
The precautionary principle, you know . I´m glad that doesn´t cost me hundreds of billions of dollars
Rob, frankly you embarrass yourself by allowing yourself to be distracted by the question of Monckton’s title. It could not be less relevant. There is no reason whatsoever to focus on anything except the merit of his argument. Anything other than that is ad hominem or irrelevant and beneath the intelligent debate you are obviously capable of.
I’ve some sympathy with that point of view ben, but it given that it is Monckton making the absurd claim that the entire climate reasearch community is engaged in some monstrous hoax, then it’s fair game to address Monckton’s own credibility.
Red, I have no idea if Monckton’s claim is absurd or not – but it is quite wrong to think that a bad argument by your opponent means personal abuse is enough to rebut him. How about, I don’t know, say why the argument is wrong? Instead Rob launches attacks on, of all things, the details of his opponent’s claims to hereditary title. Relevance?
I am surprised at Salmond’s willingness to resort to these personal attacks – Monckton’s argument can be rebutted on a number of points but Mr Salmond would rather talk about his critic’s personal values. A very poor show, regardless of topic.
Once again the Standard gang are circle jerking.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more
Rob Salmond has made at least three incorrect Statements in his post:
He suggested based on one and only one of Monckton’s presentations (Minnesota) that Monckton tries to pass himself off as both a scientist and a climate scientist.
The Truth is that Monckton has always made it very clear to his audiences that he is not a scientist, climate or otherwise. From Apocalypse? No! which I presume Salmond has viewed, since he suggested the truth regarding anthropogenic global warming is somewhere between Apocalypse? No! and An Inconvenient Truth, I provide you with the following statement.
I guess Salmond conveniently forgot that line from the film when writing this piece.
Here are two comments from Monckton while speaking at the Heartland Conference:
Clearly not the words of a man who travels the globe pretending to be a scientist or climate scientist. Had Salmond done a little research, he could have easily uncovered these clips. My guess is he wasn’t actively looking for anything that might contradict his predetermined conclusion.
And perhaps most damning to this nonsensical accusation by Salmond is a quote from the very Minnesota presentation Salmond quotes in a failed attempt to prove that Moncton is a charlatan.
One must ask why Salmond chose to believe the first quote in which in which Monckton was obviously joking and ignored the latter? I’ll let the readers decide which quote in the Minnesota presentation seems legitimate and which was a non-serious statement made in order to get a laugh. First Monckton states “as we climate scientist like to say, Sh*t happens”. In the quote above (please click on the YouTube link.) he makes it clear that he is not a scientist. Is there really a need for debate here? Either Salmond didn’t catch the second quote or he was so anxious to write a hatchet job type piece on Monckton that he deliberately ignored the second quote. Either way, any reasonably intelligent person (that would exclude Blip) should conclude that Monckton made it clear to his Minnesota audience that he is not a scientist or climate scientist.
Also in the Minnesota presentation, Monckton jokingly suggests that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a climatologist.
Given the authors inability to distinguish between a factual statement and a joke, I’m surprised Salmond didn’t claim that Monckton lied about the Governor of California’s academic background.
Salmond also makes the ridiculous accusation that Monckton is actually trying to pass himself off as a true Nobel Laureate. While I admit that Monckton did not do as good a job in Minnesota as he has done elsewhere to make the joke apparent, the truth is that one would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to listen to this quote and think that Monckton was seriously trying to dupe his audience. This is particularly true when one notes that Monckton said the UN IPCC made the change furtively without even acknowledging his contribution. Is this the type of thing for which the left-leaning Nobel Prize committee would actually give an award? If I have one criticism of Monckton, it’s that he sometimes assumes too much intelligence on the part of his audience. That was obviously the case when a certain writer reviewed the presentation on YouTube.
In a presentation made 5.5 months before the Minnesota presentation, Monckton made this comments on April 28, 2009 while speaking to an audience at Texas A&M of which I was a member.
In addition to repeating again that he is a layperson and not a scientist, he also states that the Nobel Prize pin given to him by his friend David Douglas was a joke. The following link is to a letter Monckton sent to John McCain.
Note that Monckton usually tells the story of the pin when telling the story of his correction to the UN IPCC report. Only his enemies at sites like DeSmogBlog and Tim Lambert’s Deltoid Blog seem incapable or perhaps I should say unwilling to recognize this as a very obvious joke.
As for the author’s claims that Monckton wanted to imprison AIDS victims or that he overstated the deaths caused by the ban on DDT, I think he’s already been taken to the woodshed over those misstatements by Monckton himself. I therefore will not address Salmond on these two issues at this time.
With regard to Salmond’s suggestion that I look up the difference between world government and global governance, I have a better idea. I think he should look them up. I’ve done enough of his work for him already. Perhaps better stated, I’ve looked up many things that a good writer would have looked up for himself before writing this laughable piece if he were indeed interested in getting at the truth. If there is a scarlet “H” to be worn by either of us, it is clearly Salmond.
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that could save the original post would be to change the title to “Looney Tunes from Rob Salmond”.
Your comment seems to boil down to saying that we should take Chris Monckton seriously, even when he isn’t being serious. That in itself creates a credibility issue.
Looks to me like he tells jokes because he is one – it surprises me that anyone (except jesus and guns freaks) takes him seriously.
You’ve somehow managed to get it completely backwards.
I’m saying we shouldn’t take him seriously when he isn’t being serious.
He is not a joke. Jokes aren’t asked to testify before the house and senate.
Well except for Al Gore of course.
Jesus and gun freaks? It’s funny that you say that because many have suggested that belief in anthropogenic global warming is part of the secular progressive belief system where the holy trinity is made up of belief in global warming, evolution, and the right to an abortion. What is it about a 90 minute scientific argument against AGW that would appeal strictly to Jesus and gun freaks? Note to AC, the question is rhetorical. You don’t have to answer.
As for your surprise that anyone would take him seriously, I’ve always had the same feelings about Al Gore. Your name suggests that you are already sitting, so please consider sitting this one out. The debate is over your head and you don’t deserve to be a participant.
I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name like Rob Salmond, Lord Monckton, Scott Bosswell and myself. It’s people like you and “Blip” that contribute nothing important to the discussion that hide behind an internet nickname. I can’t say that I blame you. I wouldn’t want my real name attached to an asinine comment either.
I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name
What, you mean like Lewis Carroll, Joseph Conrad, C. S. Forester, Clive Hamilton, O. Henry, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, Mark Twain, Voltaire and so on?
Wake up and smell the internets. Here we are the quality of our arguments and our evidence. No one cares about your race, class, “breeding” or ego. “I’m using my real name” is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Have a look here r0b.
It is about Chris Monckton and his views on climate change. There are a number of comments by a “Dash Riprock III”, and associated links to the Hooterville Gazette.
After being outed by another commenter and a few comments the commenter adds “Mark G.” to the end of his comments, kind of like a signature. So, the question of whether “Dash Riprock III” and “Mark G.” on the scienceblogs site are the same person as the “Mark E Gillar” found lurking at The Standard.
Dunno about you, r0b, but I’m picking that Mr Gillar has been caught out as a dirty stinking hypocrite on this one.
How’s Bryan, TX, Mark? Got it in you to fisk my reply below, or are you off to hide under your bridge?
I’d say that’s game set and match AC.
Good work AC!!
So, Marky-mark, what you gotta say about that, eh?
“You’ve somehow managed to get it completely backwards.”
It is a pretty basic principle – if you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Looks like it is you that got this one backwards. Doing stuff like claiming to be things that you are not, even for a short while, is a pretty effective way of crapping on your credibility. If Chris Monckton is not a joke, why are people laughing at the two of you? And are you sure that there has only been one “joke” testify before the senate and house? I reckon a quick google search could blow a pretty big hole in that line of yours.
“What is it about a 90 minute scientific argument against AGW that would appeal strictly to Jesus and gun freaks?”
Not being a jesus and guns freak, I would be misrepresenting my position if I gave an answer. Since many of the comments have been about misrepresentation (in case you missed it, that’s a big word for “telling lies”), it would be hypocritical of me to even try to answer it. I see that you haven’t tried, either. Should I conclude that you are not a jesus and guns freak, or that you are incapable of answering your own question?
“Your name suggests that you are already sitting”
Don’t read too much into my name. I got it from a song I like, that’s all. I chose it deliberately to avoid revealing my gender, relationship status, age, employment status, place of residence, sexuality, interests, educational background, family history, ethnicity and the like. The intention was that my comments would then be judged on their merits (or lack of merit) only, with little to cloud the substance (or lack of substance) in the comment.
“so please consider sitting this one out.”
Considered. And I won’t sit it out. I have an opinion on the subject, an interest in the outcome and the ability to express it. My opinions and interests are no more or less valuable than yours, BLiP’s, Chris Monckton’s, Rob Salmond’s or anyone else’s.
“The debate is over your head and you don’t deserve to be a participant.”
How about we let the moderators on this site decide whether or not I deserve to be a participant. You sound like an authoritarian arse making statements like this – do you really believe you live in the land of the free when you think it’s okay to suggest anyone is stripped of even their voice? Does this sound familiar?
“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”
First Amendment – Yet your own words show you don’t believe in it. And you have the gall to suggest that it is you who needs to be worried about being subjugated by world government. Hypocrite.
“I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name…”
Bollocks. I can not be sure if there is a real Mark E Gillar out there. If there is, I still can not be sure if you are one and the same. But I don’t care either way. I’m much more interested in the substance (or, in your case, lack thereof) in your comments. Does your authoritarian streak stretch to believing that the right to privacy should be removed?
Also, you seem to be assuming I do not contribute to the debate using my real name elsewhere. Sure, I am the Armchair Critic here and on a couple of other blog sites. For reasons that are my own. In other situtions, like letters to the editor, submissions to local and central government, at work, at what you would call town-hall public debates and the like I say the same things and use my real name, address etc. I would not be surprised to find that many of the other contributors here do too. Which puts your theory out to pasture. Don’t bother asking what my real name is – it is none of your business.
Lord Monkeytune is a liar – Here’s more proof.
Blip you’re well-named. In the grand scheme of things, that’s about all you are.
Yes, I did once use the name Dash RIPROCK III, but quickly dropped it when I realized that people don’t take anonymous posters serioulsy. I’ve taken it to the next level, I doubt you ever will..
Leaving asaide the obvious ad hom line of your argument, have you now found that people take you more seriously? Honestly?
I don’t take you seriously for example. I wouldn’t take you any less seriously under a pseudonym either.
Have you read the Palin book yet?
So, in the face of irrefutable evidence that your Lord Monekytune is a liar, that you are a liar AND a hypocrite, you resort to an attempt at humour in relation to by nick.
Game over, Dash. You lose.
Bullshit. I’ve been around the net and its precursors since the early 80’s. During that time I’ve always used lprent. On my first degree, I was limited to a 6 character login name at university, which I’ve used ever since. It is a pseudonym. Getting taken seriously has never been an issue. I seldom get involved in discussions unless I know the subject pretty throughly and with a reasonable or better level of understanding, and that becomes readily apparent to anyone else who knows the topic.
Perhaps you should rephrase your statement to :-
Sure seems far more appropriate to me.
Coincidently that degree was a BSc in Earth Sciences, which is why I know that both you and the lord of flatulence lack the basic understanding of climate, let alone the detail of climate change.
BTW: I also fixed your typo while restating your statement.
“I did once use the name Dash RIPROCK III, but quickly dropped it…”
You used it for a good six months.
Is this the best excuse you can come up with?
I’ll add to LP’s point about your fundamental lack of understanding of the science – you seem to have no comprehension of the basics of statistical techniques, and this shows through in many of your comments.
You are the sorriest, most poorly informed, authoritarian, unprincipled hypocrite I have come across for years. The only thing you have said that I readily agree with is that the debate is over. And you lost. Big time.
Lord Monckton hits the correct nail on the head. Most of the world do not know what the big picture of the controlling powers are to paint a picture to get what they want, a one world government. Its very serious it they sign. Anything we do will not change a thing. Don’t you know there are religions that want a one world power and they will use anything to get it. The number of scientists against climate change way out way the ones for it. I’m glad I know where I’m going and where I’ll end up.
Bullshit. Read this post Examining the scientific consensus on climate change that I wrote a few months back.
If you said something more like
Then it would probably be a factual statement.
Incidentally you probably didn’t help your argument by being unable to correctly spell. It does make your opinion a little hard to even consider as being by someone who knew what they were talking about.
“Don’t you know there are religions that want a one world power and they will use anything to get it.”
Their elders detail their plans in ‘the protocols’, right?