The peer goes potty

Written By: - Date published: 10:57 pm, July 15th, 2010 - 16 comments
Categories: climate change, science - Tags:

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.

16 comments on “The peer goes potty ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Grapethroat 1
    15 July 2010 at 11:12 pm

    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.

    • lprent 1.1
      15 July 2010 at 11:15 pm

      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.

  2. BLiP 2
    15 July 2010 at 11:24 pm

    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.

    • lprent 2.1
      15 July 2010 at 11:42 pm

      It isn’t science fiction! It is more like fantasy…

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        16 July 2010 at 1:19 am

        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”.

        • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1
          16 July 2010 at 5:10 am

          Lience?

        • lprent 2.1.1.2
          16 July 2010 at 7:17 am

          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

    • lprent 2.2
      16 July 2010 at 7:24 am

      I suspect that he’d do almost anything to avoid that

  3. Bunnykinz 3
    15 July 2010 at 11:25 pm

    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

    • walter 3.1
      16 July 2010 at 1:10 pm

      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.

      • David 3.1.1
        16 July 2010 at 5:48 pm

        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?

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1
          16 July 2010 at 8:33 pm

          So that will be 389 parts per million of Super on the cabbage plant.

          Another RWNJ proving that he doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about. It would have to be a relative amount and not absolute.

          I watched Abrahams video. Its certainly defamatory and much like stuff from his ilk, he doesnt back it up.

          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.

          • David 3.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2010 at 8:34 am

            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?

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    19 July 2010 at 11:05 am

    Updates here:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/humble-suggestion.html

    … with the university’s response to Moncton, plus, Lawyer’s Letters!!

    Dear Lord Monckton

    Our firm represents the University of St. Thomas. I am writing concerning your recent communications with University President Father Dease, Professor John Abraham and other University personnel relating to Prof. Abraham’s talk entitled “But Chris Monckton Said . . .”

    It is the University’s position that Professor Abraham has done nothing improper or illegal in expressing his ideas and opinions on this matter and that Professor Abraham has not engaged in any academic or professional misconduct. Accordingly, the University will not investigate Professor Abraham’s conduct in this matter as you requested, nor will the University issue a retraction or apology for Professor Abraham’s talk, comply with any of your other demands, or respond to any further communications from you on this matter.

    Further, the University is appalled by your disparaging, outrageous and defamatory comments, regarding the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease and Professor John Abraham, especially the comments you made during a television interview on June 24, 2010. On behalf of the University of St. Thomas, we demand that you immediately cease and desist making any further disparaging or defamatory comments about the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease, Professor Abraham, the Archdioceses of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, or anyone else associated with the University. If your inappropriate conduct does not cease immediately, the University of St. Thomas will have no choice but to take appropriate legal action.

    Very truly yours,

    MOORE, COSTELLO & HAR, P.L.L.P
    By Phyllis Karasov

Links to post