Written By:
lprent - Date published:
10:57 pm, July 15th, 2010 - 16 comments
Categories: climate change, science -
Tags: Lord Monckton
At Hot Topic, Gareth has a post on Christopher Monckton (more commonly known as the “Potty Peer”) attempting to stifle the well-justified criticism of himself . As various authors here have pointed out before, the guy is an outright nutter with a vastly inflated ego and a penchant for exaggeration that frequently verges on outright lying.
For some reason he seems to think that it is ok for him to do his pathetic best to criticize actual working scientists including accusing them of lying. This is despite having little apparent knowledge of the subjects on which he speaks. However he seems to think they should not be able to criticize his level of stupid ineptitude.
George Monbiot points out the obvious irony in the Guardian today:
Reading these ravings, I’m struck by two thoughts. The first is how frequently climate change deniers resort to demands for censorship or threats of litigation to try to shut down criticism of their views. Martin Durkin has done it, Richard North has done it, Monckton has done it many times before. They claim to want a debate, but as soon as it turns against them they try to stifle it by intimidating their opponents. To me it suggests that these people can give it out, but they can’t take it.
Amongst the great dearth of scientific knowledge amongst many of the climate change skeptics and deniers, Monckton stands out as being the depth to which they haven’t yet descended. John Abraham does a pretty good dissection of the black hole of scientific ineptitude that is Monckton.
Gareth has a post up with the intent of supporting John Abraham, who has obviously managed to get under Monckton’s skin with an scientific analysis of one of his speeches. It appears that Monckton wants to get the criticism removed from the public eye, probably because it is too accurate, and probably interferes with his ability to make money off climate change denial.
As Gareth says
In my view, it’s time to stand up to the potty peer’s attempts at intimidation of Abraham and his University. Rather than flood them with email, I propose that anyone who supports the statement below leave a comment with their name, location and academic affiliation (if any).
I’d suggest heading over there and giving him a hand. The peer should do his crapping in a more appropriate manner – like this Japanese Edo era chamber potty.
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
I think this will end up in the UK courts. Monckton has demanded Abraham and his university apologise and pay money to a charity. I can’t see either side backing down so this should be a very interesting sideshow. If he can get it up before the UK courts I’m thinking Monckton could well win.
It is unlikely that the potty would win. After all, there is a basic defense for all forms of defamation and libel. I can’t see anything that Abraham said in his criticisms that is incorrect.
You haven’t even read Monckton’s response to Abraham have you?
Wouldn’t it be great to have Lord Monkeytunes on the witness stand for a few days and having to defend his science fiction before a suitably informed and skilled barrister.
It isn’t science fiction! It is more like fantasy…
Fiction, fantasy – not really a lot of difference between the two as they both refer to the non-existent. We’re talking Monckton here – the word that doesn’t apply to anything he says is the word “science”.
Lience?
That becomes pretty clear as you go through John Abrahams criticism. Most of the stuff that he refers to is pretty self evident misinterpretation of science papers or volume 1 of the IPCC report.
I am sure that makes for gripping story telling. But it has bugger all to do with science. At least science fiction usually has some grounding in possible science. Most fantasy on the other hand doesn’t
I suspect that he’d do almost anything to avoid that
This is probably not the best place to ask this question, but it has just sprung to mind while reading this post so I will ask it here:
While I respect the right of climate change deniers to have an opinion that differs from my own despite the evidence, can I ask, do any of them feel that pollution* is a good thing?
*Pollution, that is what is meant by carbon emissions, right? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong
I am informed constantly by a denier friend that “C02 is plant food”
By that definition, I’m pretty sure they’d say that pollution was indeed a good thing.
To test this theory I will now dump a sack of superphosphate (plant food) on a cabbage plant and see how much better it does.
Good idea Walter. But to be fair and all scientific like, how about applying the same proportion of CO2 and Superphosphate.
So that will be 389 parts per million of Super on the cabbage plant. Let us know what difference it makes.
I watched Abrahams video. Its certainly defamatory and much like stuff from his ilk, he doesnt back it up.
The “potty peer” had a pretty thorough response. I think Abraham is in trouble with this one as he just proves that each extremist on either side is as bad as each other.
So how is proving that the feedback is “positive” going anyway?
Another RWNJ proving that he doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about. It would have to be a relative amount and not absolute.
Except that it’s not defamatory, merely factual, and he does back up what he says.
In other words, you’re trying to rewrite reality to suit your delusion.
So a “sack” is a relative amount. Good onya for agreeing Walter “doesnt know WTF he’s talking about”.
You havent read the “potty peers” reply either have you. Whats the matter, afraid you might see something which shatters your faith?
So how is proving that feedback from CO2 is positive going? hmm.
Heres another question for you; how many Temperature Measuring Stations are there in the Artic Circle?
Updates here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/humble-suggestion.html
… with the university’s response to Moncton, plus, Lawyer’s Letters!!