Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Dear Anthony, – I’ve enjoyed your series on disinvitation of those who doubt “global warming” by true-believers in the New Religion.
Your readers may enjoy the following well-documented account. – Christopher
==============================================
Yet another “global warming” disinvitation to add to the season’s merriment. Some months ago Roger Helmer, a Conservative Member of the European Duma who has dared to question whether “global warming” is a global crisis, was invited to lunch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, together with leading members of the university’s Environmental Sciences faculty.
The Vice-Chancellor invited Mr. Helmer to bring anyone else who might be interested, and replied that he would be accompanied by James Delingpole, a distinguished columnist with Britain’s national conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Monckton, deputy leader and climate-change spokesman for Britain’s second-largest party in European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A couple of months went by. Then, two days before the lunch was due to take place, the Vice-Chancellor’s office got in touch with Mr. Helmer by email, announcing that Mr. Delingpole and Lord Monckton had been disinvited:
“I am writing in response to recent correspondence/your call about Mr Helmer’s visit to UEA next Friday 29th. The Vice-Chancellor is looking forward to meeting Mr Helmer as planned. However, I am afraid that there has been a misunderstanding in terms of the proposed accompanying guests. It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent I am afraid that the invitation to meet with the VC cannot be extended to Lord Monckton and Mr Delingpole on this occasion. I am conscious that your office gave our office the names of Mr Helmer’s proposed companions last month but unfortunately they only came to light yesterday.
“If Lord Monckton or Mr Delingpole have particular journalistic enquiries, the University’s Press Office would of course be very happy to receive them.”
Mr. Helmer was not pleased either with the cheesy pretext for the disinvitation or the very late date. The day before the planned visit, he wrote:
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding my visit to UEA tomorrow, but I have to say that I am rather taken aback at this abrupt change of tack. I supplied the names of my colleagues whom I proposed to bring with me some weeks ago (as you rightly point out), and it is rather an embarrassment to have to turn them off at this very late stage. You will be aware that we are dealing here with people who are prominent in their respective fields, and will certainly have dense diary commitments.
“I am disappointed also because while I have a good level of general familiarity with the various issues which we hope to discuss, these colleagues certainly have much more detailed knowledge than I, particularly on the science (Lord Monckton) and on the history and content of the leaked e-mails (James Delingpole). I feel that our meeting will therefore be less useful than it might have been.
“However, we must make the best of it. I propose instead to invite a parliamentary colleague to accompany me (I await his confirmation). This is Stuart Agnew MEP, who represents the Eastern Region and is therefore one of the MEPs covering Norwich and Norfolk. I trust that Mr. Agnew will be acceptable to the Vice Chancellor: if not, please let me know as soon as possible.”
Lord Monckton recommended that Mr. Helmer might take a rather tougher line. Mr. Helmer agreed, and wrote to the Vice-Chancellor’s office again:
“Following my e-mail earlier this morning, I have now been in communication with Lord Monckton, and I feel I have to ask you and the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider your decision.
“You describe Lord Monckton as a “political activist”. Not only is he Deputy Leader of a party which came second (ahead of Labour) in the 2009 Euro-Elections. He is also a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and acknowledged around the world as an authority on the science of climate change and an expert on climate sensitivity. It is rather depressing that the University is not prepared to talk to him.
“I now learn that Lord Monckton has — at very great inconvenience — arranged to return to the UK early from a banking conference in China, and to delay a forthcoming business trip to New York, at a cost of many thousands of pounds, precisely so that he can attend. I find it particularly embarrassing, therefore, to uninvite him at this late stage — you have placed me in a very difficult position. Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
“In these circumstances I should like to appeal to you, and to the Vice Chancellor, to reconsider your decision. At the same time, I am assured that James Delingpole would be happy to follow Chatam House rules if you wish, and would have an important contribution to make to our discussions.
“Please reconsider this issue in the light of these comments, and let me have your advice as soon as possible.”
Faced with Mr. Helmer’s determination, the Vice-Chancellor caved in:
“Again may I offer our apologies for altering arrangements at this late stage and thank you for our willingness to suggest another accompanying colleague. The Vice-Chancellor would be very happy to meet you with your fellow MEP Stuart Agnew as you suggest. This would be a meeting over lunch with the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Prof Trevor Davies and colleagues from Environmental Sciences, Profs Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, between 12:30-1.30pm in the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
“I am sorry to learn in your second email of the inconvenience caused to Lord Monckton’s travel schedule. In view of the late alteration to his plans, the Vice-Chancellor has agreed to see Lord Monckton along with some of the same UEA colleagues in a separate meeting, immediately after you and Mr Agnew leave us at 1.30pm. We will make sure lunch is still available.
“I trust that these arrangements will be acceptable to you and colleagues and once again apologise for the inconvenience caused.”
The moral of the tale: don’t accept disinvitation. It’s rude and unnecessary. Stand your ground and put the academic bullies in their place.
I truly wonder what they’re trying to hide or are afraid of. Isn’t the purpose of a university (from the root word “universe”) to entertain all pertinent ideas–especially on a topic as interesting as climate change?
I agree that the time for being timid is over–even if long-held views about certain subjects are tossed in the process. Fear accomplishes nothing.
mod: perhaps the Univ needs a free speech zone sectioned off for those that want to present slideshows about climate change. I doubt they had an issue with Al Gore’s troopers presenting their PPTs.
They are afraid of the same thing James Cameron is afraid of, being called out on BS dogma. They know they are perpetuating a scam of colossal magnitude and any actual confrontation or debate is another blow to an already dying agenda. They are murdering their own religion with faux science, and good riddance when it’s finally buried.
All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?
The phrase “running scared” comes to mind!
Roy says:
October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
The point is not even close to their eating etiquette, Roy–it has to do with their blatant attempts at closing down debate regarding one of the most visible, potentially controlling and destructive movements out there–“climate science” (or “global climate disruption” to use their current vernacular). If the success of western civilization weren’t in jeopardy, I’d agree with you that this was a non-issue. However, this egregious movement has become as polarizing and destructive as the Cold War.
More inspiration as ever from the good Monckton. A good story and a good moral.
Once again we see from these academic liberals that as long as they mean well then what they do no matter how rude does not matter.
Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
Then two days before the event, individuals in Vice Chancellor’s office just “discovered” who the invited guests were? I am assuming that Vice Chancellor does not have a secretary/assistant who manages these things? Really?
I’m not buying the “just discovered” line. I wonder what other meetings the Vice Chancellor has either fumbled through or been embarrassed by shoddy work of his secretary/assistant? I’m guessing none. If I were the Vice Chancellor, I would have let go of the individuals managing my calendar and brought in some better people.
@Roy: “What’s the point?” I think there are several points. The main one is not sloppy etiquette. That’s a symptom or result of the real failure, which is of intellectual courage. They are so beholden to their backers, so accustomed to the bullying and backstabbing by which the agenda is “managed,” that they no longer know what good science looks like, or how to achieve it. Any scientist worth her salt would look first to meet with her strongest critics. If her work survives their scrutiny, it will be all the stronger for it. This limp performance by the vice-head of the entire enterprise –exhibiting less sense of purpose and honesty than you’d expect from an assistant under-secretary for faculty outings– shows how deep the rot has reached.
———
Corollary #1 of Dis-Invitation: Acknowledge it initially in velvet tones, then discuss it with even tempered concern followed expeditiously with steely non-acceptance of the lack of the dis-invitor’s gentlemanly behavior. Finally, publish to whole affair.
John
Well played, very well played. I agree about the moral of the story.
Blantant cowardice. The whole point about tenure, honours, etc., is that one can be free and can demonstrate the highest common standards of behaviour … ‘grace’ if you like.
In other times, failure to rise to the occasion and behave properly.. particularly through fear… would have been met with a street ‘debagging’
I am glad it has gone public; so everyone knows just what kind of person that Vice Chancellor really is.
I personally would have SHOWN UP.
And dared them to have me PHYSICALLY REMOVED.
Of course, as a 57 year old competing athlete, I have the wherewithall to do that. However, it does beg the question – – – are they willing to call in surrogate “goons” to protect their turf?
I’m doing my “Atmospheric Physics” lecture for the 7th time in 14 months in December. It is interesting to note that the most “contentuous” individual to attend my lectures insisted on continuously asking, “Do you BELIEVE in global warming..”
My response was to refer to the TITLE of the lecture. To the bemusement of about a dozen people standing about after the lecture, this man could not REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THE LECTURE! I do have to admit a little Monckton class has rubbed off, as I noted that if he could not remember the title of the lecture, maybe he actually “wasn’t there”, and that’s the way I intended to treat his question. I.e. as if he wasn’t there. (I then turned and began to talk to someone else.)
P.S. Lord Monckton has lightyears more CLASS than I do, I will defer to his “Royal Blood”, and use him as a model for holding forth in intellectual battle, yet maintaining class and dignity!
The UEA/CRU school song should be the one by Judy Collins called ‘Send in the Clowns’.
The particularly appropriate lines in the lyrics are:
The Dis-Invitors at UEA/CRU are the clowns. They are already there.
John
@oMan and RockyRoad:
I am perfectly aware of the implied point being made by squawking about these disinvitations, but taking notice of every single one is petty and easy to ridicule. (Taking notice of every single evasion and lie to the UK parliament’s S&TC on the other hand is devastating and impossible to ridicule.) If a skeptic like me thinks this blog is flirting with the ridiculous on this, imagine what the warmists make of it.
Being shown to be charlatans in the history books, and eventual social ostracism, isn’t enough punishment for these people. I’m sorry Anthony, but it just isn’t. Criminal prosecution for fraud and charges under the RICO act are what’s needed.
Lengthy stays in prison and huge civil judgments against as well. They are deliberately acting in bad faith, they lie, cheat and steal. And they do it because they have no fear of being punished.
Well at least they get lunch. It’s a start.
Well, let’s face it, no warmist wants to face Monckton over lunch. They might as well sign up for a whipping. ” Yes, waiter, I will take the “thorough drubbing” with a side of “humiliation”….. and the “mea culpa” tea….. and perhaps a cup of acid to pour over my face. Thank you. 🙂
What a sad, pathetic lot that must be. Distinguished educators and professors afraid of an exchange of thoughts with critics? Are they completely intellectually bankrupt? And even if they are does mean they have also relinquished any fortitude they may have had? How can they face their students and colleagues when they find they attempted to hide from their critics? That they would run from an opportunity to face the much reviled Monckton and Delingpole and “give them hell” says about all that needs said.
They had their names for weeks and only “became aware” at the last minute. Call this a “University” – they loose data, they can’t keep appointments, they can’t handle even simple FOI requests – basically they are totally inept, totally incompetent and a disgrace to British Academia.
They are pedaling their bike backwards and avoiding opposition down dark hallways to avoid having a conversation with the truth and to face those who want to bring it to them. That does little to bring confidence to their cause.
As Road wrote, Western civilization is at risk with the global warming agenda. A university or organization, government or civilian should be interested in scientific proof over dogma, in the fate of their civilization over personal profit and their integrity over dishonesty. And Oman wrote of intellectual courage, certainly important to science and life.
Their courage is exposed when they first reject then cave to determination to discuss the truth with science at the center of the discussion.
Roy, it just demonstrates how incomprehensibly low our governments, places of higher education, and propaganda machines have fallen.
That’s all.
Roy says: October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?
MJ says: October 28, 2010 at 10:23 am
Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
======================================================
Well Gentlemen, This simply underscores the arrogance and sloppiness of these people. The Harry Readme files demonstrated time and again these characteristics of the denizens of this place while the Chancellor’s office seemingly couldn’t run a p— up in a brewery but couldn’t care less about it anyway. The stiff necked responses showed their arrogant disdain.
These are the people however, who are somewhat responsible for the reasons why governments throughout the western world are hell bent on increasing taxes to deal with co2 emission into the atmosphere. If it weren’t so serious it would provide material for another series of ‘Blackadder’ or ‘Yes Minister’.
PS – loved Lord M’s tale.
Doug
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”.
He was indeed a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. His appointment was announced in The Times in 1982 under the heading “Journalists to join Thatcher policy team.” Later the same year he is described as being in a “policy unit specialising in home affairs” and as a “domestic specialist at the policy unit.” Nowhere in The Times is there any reference to him being a ‘science advisor’ though he did produce and market a computer program to predict election results. In 1984 he is described as being responsible for “housing, [and] parliamentary affairs.”
At Cambridge University he got a lower second class degree in Classics.
I recognise that in recent years has made valiant efforts to get up to speed on the science of climate change but to describe himself as a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher, who herself had a Chemistry degree, is disingenuous.
Well played indeed – whilst the UoEA scored an own goal, the dis-invited scored a number of their own.
Such antics will simply underline to the general public what crass merchants of spin and misinformation the “Hockey Stick Team” and their supporters really are.
One feels rather that this is a classic example of the poor unfortunate that won a prize in the “Stella Awards” a year or so ago (named after the person who successfully sued a provider of coffee because the coffee was hot!) who was trying to use a gun to rob a store and the gun jammed, so in true, if somewhat messy farce, the robber looked down the barrel of the gun and pulled the trigger again. This time it worked.
Am I right in thinking that the “Hockey Team” has been threatening the world with a defective catastrophe “gun”, only to find that when they need their gun to work and it doesn’t, they do far more than just shoot themselves in the foot.
Even the most blatant “teamspeak” article in the Guardian by the alarmists is regularly torn apart in the comments columns – with the sensible, sceptical comments scoring far higher “recommendations”.
What a difference a year makes!
I don’t mind being called a denier, since denier I am. I should mind very much being called a disinviter, for were I to be happy with that then what would be left to say about me?
—————-
Roy,
NOTE: I have foresworn labels like ‘w—–ts’, so I use the terminology ‘settled/consensus science supporters’ instead.
There is a lot of blog posting and commenting in the climate blogosphere providing evidence of what the ‘settled/consensus science supporters’ already think of commenters here.
They would completely approve of everything here if, and only if, this were an exact clone of RC or any of the RC’s droid blogs.
As you imply, any of us can improve the politeness and professionalism of our blog commenting and posting. There is always room for personal improvement in blogging.
John
[Would that make you an “antisetconscisup” writing on wattsup? Robt }
@RockyRoad: what you said. And @Roy: sure, it’s just lunch. (Although the lunch nicely illustrates the entrainment of resources: because the V-C was slow and weak, the dis-invite was going to cost at least one guest a bunch of money. Small mistakes can produce big costs, a parable for the whole CAGW show.). So you may be right that the other camp will cackle at how the skeptics are incensed over trifles. But so what? Not everything here has to be Profoundly Important. Some of it, thankfully, is very human, personal, funny, touching. No harm in that. And, finally, character is revealed in the little acts, as much as in the big ones. Often more so, because the little acts tempt us to cut corners: who will notice? the cost is low, the benefit of cheating high. Take the easy way: many do. The V-C did. It says a lot; more than he meant or, given the quality of his words, more than he recognized.
“ It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent”
I am certain that these assertions could be easily falsifiable if the VC has a published list of guests to prior meetings. Or is this to be take as a weasel statement, and the reply would be “Oh, yes, we sometimes meet MPs and MEPs, and we sometimes meet journalists and we sometimes meet party activists, and sometimes we meet with two of the above together, but NEVER ALL THREE at the same time!” Omigod, what an awful precedent it would set if they did that!
How childish.
Anyone check to see if the VC’s dance card is publicly accessible?
Better to have not responded to the dis-invitation, and then sent an e-mail late in the evening before the meeting:
Since I have not heard from you recently and I may not have another opportunity to communicate while I am travelling, I’m writing to confirm our meeting tomorrow at noon at the Vice-Chancellor’s office. My colleagues and I are looking forward to an interesting exchange of ideas.
All the best —
Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
Translation:
“Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Persist in this farce, and the story of your cowardly prevarication will be front-page news tomorrow!”
@John whitman
Much though I admire Judy Collins and her magnificent voice, I really should point out that ‘Send in The Clowns’ was written by Stephen Sondheim, and specifically for the voice of Welsh actress Glynis Johns.
Ms Collins could sing the phone book and it would still sound wonderful, but GJ was the first and greatest interpreter.
And I am itching to know what actually happened when they all managed to have lunch in the same room at UEA.
I’m not sure why anybody here is surprised by the recent activities of the Church. Lately it seems that we are back in the same position we were pre climategate/Copenhagen. The usual “well (oil?) funded attacks on science (anti-science)” pieces from the usual share holding PR mouthpieces spouting the company line while carefully avoiding specifics. Science that can always “homogenise” any inconvenient real world data. And of course Carbon scammers drooling over the potential of trillions of dollars for nothing and rewarding those who help them out.
The UEA is just another (minor) beneficiary of the billions handed out to anyone willing to jump the train. Let me get this straight – we are surprised that UEA doesn’t want to loose its carbon cash bonanza by hosting “flat earth believers and holocaust deniers”?
These people have no shame, as long as the money flows so will the support. Take a look at our own (UK) PM handing out cash to the father in law or his “deputy” handing it out to his wife. It might not sound like much in a world that talks about billions but let’s be clear … it is a lottery win every year for your friends and family and who would turn that down?
I always believed in politics because of the idea that “politics abhors a vacuum” (on any subject) but it seems that the vacuum, now, can always be filled with bullshit and cash. How else would these arse holes pass the climate change act in the middle of a snow storm (the earliest for 80 years)? If there were a God then perhaps he/she was trying to warn them?
To paraphrase someone who may be familiar to some readers – a bunch of scammers and thieves protected by thugs carrying machine guns. Welcome to the UK. Do try and join the UEA dinner Lord Monkton – here at WUWT we will get your bail money together in few minutes via Paypal.
In the mean time I might suggest that “politics abhors a vacuum” or at least it should… if someone has the balls to stand up that is.
Thank you for the best story – you are a talent, respected creator. Every little thing I want to do now is to start my authoring – I say you it will be a A-OK essay
Ron Manley says: October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher…..etc.
Ron. I do not doubt that this is true. And do you want to know something? You are a pain in the a—- for telling us this just now.
Have a nice day
Doug
So who got to the VC?
It would be interesting to see those emails!
“Ron Manley says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
At Cambridge University he got a lower second class degree in Classics.
I recognise that in recent years has made valiant efforts to get up to speed on the science of climate change but to describe himself as a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher, who herself had a Chemistry degree, is disingenuous.”
Well Monckton’s lower 2nd trumps Thatcher’s 3rd class degree. (If indeed Cambridge did award lower 2nd degrees back in the early 70’s which is debateable believe it or not.)
Your point also emphasises how intellectually weak must be the climate scientists whose work he so effectively criticizes.
——————
Latimer Alder,
Indeed about Glynis Johns. It is a great song done also by Frank Sinatra and Barbra Streisand. The writer of the song was honored by the wealth of great singers doing it.
Yeah, what finally went on at the lunch?
John
If you are dis-invited to something and you really want to go, the best thing to do is ignore the dis-invitation and just show up.
Mike Haseler says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:38 am
“They had their names for weeks and only “became aware” at the last minute. Call this a “University” – they loose data, they can’t keep appointments, they can’t handle even simple FOI requests – basically they are totally inept, totally incompetent and a disgrace to British Academia.”
IIRC it isn’t actually a University – it was one of the Polytechnics recently relabelled a University by PC politicians. It wasn’t even one of the better Polytechnics. So it probably never had much of an academic or cultural tradition to sink from.
Don’t forget that UEA is one of the minor universities in the UK. It is a third rate university and has been since its foundation in the 60s. Hence it has a School of Environmental Studies but no physics department. It doesn’t do real science . It attracts third rate academics like Jones and Davies. Jones’ role over the years could be described as clerical, not scientific; and he has proven himself to be a third rate clerk who can’t file his data properly.
Ron Manley>
According to what appears to be quite a favourable bio:
“Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury’s economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. ”
Doesn’t sound disingenuous to me.
The operative words here are “at a cost of many thousands of pounds”. it is time to stop pussyfooting around. If they invite you, and it costs many thousands of pounds, and then at the last minute they disinvite you, then you have excellent ground for a lawsuit. You need not therefore even contact them, simply have your lawyer do it (be prepared to go through with the lawsuit). Otherwise, these disinvitations will continue to be done, at great financial cost to those disinvited.
Really, are you just going to roll over and let them stomp on you? Just how long will you allow this sort of thing to go on? How many will have to be hurt before anyone has the guts to take action?
Ron Manley,
After glancing at your climate alarmist blog I noticed:
That is hogwash. It is not “generally accepted” that the null hypothesis has been falsified, in fact it has never been falsified. Natural climate fluctuations fully explain the observed variability without any need to add an insignificant trace gas.
The logical fallacy “Argumenum ad Ignorantium” infects your belief system: since you can’t explain why “the rate of temperature increase has levelled off since the start of this century,” you wrongly presume that CO2 has to be the cause of the most recent warming event – but that the immediately preceding event was not due to CO2. Nonsense.
Could you be any less convincing, or more illogical?
You also neglected to acknowledge that Lord Monckton’s degree is in Mathematics, without which there would be no Physics. You, on the other hand, seem to have misplaced confidence in highly questionable computer models. Models fail to make consistent, accurate predictions, and they differ from unadjusted observations. Yet you presume to nitpick and denigrate Lord Monckton’s verifiable accomplishments. You’re fooling no one here with your alarmist propaganda.
Well, well, M’Lud. Disinvitation?
Didn’t bother to read the bluurb – the same old bleating and whining no doubt..
Disinvitation? Aww…That must smart!
Good to come straight here to The Village to have your wounds soothed. Such a shining knight fighting only for truth and right, ambushed in such a cowardly fashion! ‘Tis only right that you should turn first here, my Lord, to your faithful people, to receive succour and sympathy. If only our enemies would fight fair, using but the sword of data, and the shield of peer reviewed studies, our victory would indeed be near! But….disinvitation – how could they stoop so low?
Don’t fret, M’Lud M. – you may be in the gutter today, but when ‘The Great Cooling’ starts (by the way, any news on that yet, folks?) you’ll be catapulted to the level of glory that you crave…
Your humble serf, The Idiot
Posted this on Judith Curry’s blog, went directly into the bin?
Arguing about the actual climate sensitivity +.5,1.5,2.5,3.5 C for a doubling of Co2 is a waste of time. With China, India, and the rest of the developing world building coal power plants as fast as they can get them on line at the rate of about 4 to 5 per week. They will be pushing the CO2 level at rapid rates no matter what, the other 25% of the total CO2 production of the developed world output does to their economy in an attempt to decrease the global CO2 level.
So we shall soon see what the real climate sensitivity is, as the resultant CO2 levels of production from those who have NO INTENTION of slowing down their coal and oil consumption, continue to ramp up their use of fossil fuels.
Changing the rules for power production in the USA and EU countries, NZ and Australia, with huge increases in costs of power, will have no effect on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that the lower competition for coal and oil stores will in effect lower the costs for the third world and increase their maximum consumption rates possiable.
To waste time talking about the “two sides” of this distracting argument, as the total consumption of fossil fuels goes up as fast as it can be removed from the ground is a shame. Adaption to any resulting effects is the only viable alternative. Forcing by regulation or taxation the developed world to eviscerate itself uselessly investing in unreliable solar or wind power, at the same time driving all production industries, and jobs toward the third world, makes sense only to international corporations and banking systems.
This senseless name calling of the scientists on both sides of the political fence, and infighting over the details of the amount of the sensitivity of the climate will soon come to an end, as the experiment on the Earth is continued with out any possible controls by the IPCC policy makers, who only want it to proceed as is, with ADDITIONAL FUNDS taken from taxes paid by the developed world, to hasten to transfer of wealth to the third world, while weakening the Western government systems through self imposed bankruptcy.
Dis-invitation? That’s really not cricket, old chap.
Chaps simply do not behave in such a fashion.
They’re cads, not Gentlemen. Please ignore them.
If they have any vestige of honour left, they’ll leave.
Although the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the English language would serve to deliver a far more robust response I consider it politic to restrain myself to the understated response given above.
Lucia’s take on this story over at the Blackboard is interesting.
She calls it Lunchgate and points out that Monckton and Delingpole are invited to a second lunch, not The lunch. Hmm.
This has all the makings of a Westend farce.
“””” Ron Manley says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”. “”””
And you; I presume were present at each and every meeting that Lord Monckton had with the Prime Minister; no doubt to rule on which of his utterances propely constituted “Science advice” and which failed by concensus to meet that standard.
So would it matter if instead of a “lower second class degree in Classics” from Cambridge; he got a PhD in IceCream Making from the University of Phoenix.
The issue would seem to be, whether or not he gave “advice” whether informed or not, about science matters to the Prime Minister.
As I read your post; your authority on his responsibilities, would seem to be an ordinary daily newspaper; the like of which one might line the bottom of a parrot cage to catch the; well you know what it is there to catch. Well it would work under your post too wouldn’t it ?
Frankly, I have no idea what Lord Monckton’s actual credentials are; other than he absolutely is a Viscount; properly addressed as “Lord Monckton”. You know, it is a British equivalent of check bouncing Barbara Boxer telling a West Point graduate Major General to please call her “Senator”, as she worked hard to get that Title; whereas the Major general worked really hard to earn his rank and was properly trained to adress all senior officers including members of the Congress as “Sir” or “Ma’am”, as standard Military (US) protocol. In Lord Monckton’s case it was his Grandfather who worked really hard to earn that hereditary title; and I am sure there were considerable reasons to make it a hereditary title.
What I know of Lord Monckton’s career; I don’t think he has in any way given cause to doubt the wisdom of that appointment.
I have had some short written scientific exchanges with Viscount Monckton; and in no way did I get any indication that he was not well versed in what he was talking about.
I have not a clue as to what a “lower second class degree in Classics”, might entail. To me it might mean some sort of study of Music from Bach to Mozart; which would segregate it from an “Intermediate study of Der Ring des Nibelungen”; but then I would probably be wrong; not knowing anything about the British University Education system.
Harry S. Truman was hardly schooled to prepare him to become The President of The United States; yet somehow; that didn’t prevent him from becoming one of the greatest to ever hold that office.
Your post Ron is petty; and that is an ordinary Kiwi street description. In a less formal environment, I might tell you what I really think of it.
Village Idiot says: October 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Well, well, M’Lud. Disinvitation?
—————————————————————————–
Well Mr Village Idiot. You described yourself rather aptly.
Cheers
Doug
Do you guys really want to defend Monckton and Delingpole? You know they make skeptics look really bad, right?
Layne Blanchard said
” Well, let’s face it, no warmist wants to face Monckton over lunch. They might as well sign up for a whipping. ” Yes, waiter, I will take the “thorough drubbing” with a side of “humiliation”….. and the “mea culpa” tea….. and perhaps a cup of acid to pour over my face. Thank you. 🙂 ”
Brilliant. For a Grande Finale, might I suggest the ” Just Desserts”?
—
So will this luncheon exchange be recorded (for upload to the ‘Net) or will it be conducted entirely “off the record” so that only edited and otherwise redacted second-hand accounts of the discussions will be made public?
I always enjoy seeing Mr. Monckton speak, and while I’m certain that Mr. Delingpole will provide his readers with zest-filled accounts of what he hears, it would be very nice – very, VERY nice, indeed! – to have the full proceedings up for detailed examination on the CFACT Web site.
With highlights on YouTube, of course.
—
“The Man Who Couldn’t Come to Dinner”?
As others have pointed out, UEA is a little university without any particular merit. I would think that Roger Helmer is quite capable of dealing with the VC and director of research. Since he is a prominent AGW sceptic, they probably want to stop him talking about climate change in one their most important sources of funding (the EU).
If you have eaten what passes for good food in British educational establishments, I wonder if it will be up to Brussels standard?
—
At 1:46 PM on 28 October, Paul Birch had written of the University of East Anglia:
…
Over on this side of the Atlantic, the “Polytechnics” don’t have anything remotely resembling a negative image. When Americans consider MIT, CalTech, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or even Stevens Institute of Technology in humble Hoboken, there tends to be an expectation of faculty and student body competence – and integrity – far superior to what is commonly found in even the much-vaunted Ivy League schools.
Might it be possible to have someone in Blighty explain to us colonials just what the heck justifies the scorn in which “the Polytechnics” seem to be held over there?
—
——————
Starwatcher,
Of course, it is obvious that to the ‘settled/consensus science supporters they look bad, that is a tautology. Duh! Every person who doesn’t agree with them looks bad to the ‘settled/consensus science’ supporters . . . .
To the public that is now overwhelmingly rejecting the ‘settled/consensus science’ supporters, well, Monckton and Delingpole don’t look so bad.
People can see integrity. The public do not see integrity in the ‘settled/consensus science’ supporters. It was the ad nauseum claims of we-are-all-going-to-die-right-now from the ‘settled/consensus science supporters’ that caused the public to lose trust.
Don’t blame Monckton and Delingpole for the ‘settled/consensus science’ supporters’ fatal strategic error. : )
John
@Starwatcher: I don’t think either Lord Monckton or James Delingpole needs any defense. The former can rhetorically fillet his foes without raising his voice; the latter is smart, eloquent and funny. As for them “mak[ing] skeptics look bad,” they would have to muck things up pretty horribly before they could hope to equal the damage done to the cause of AGW, and the reputation of UAE, by the Hockey Stick Team and Climategaters. IMHO.
Starwatcher says: October 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Monckton is a standing offence to warmists because despite no degree in maths or science of any sort, he is an outstanding mathematician who wins against Gavin Schmidt hands down every time. Warmists say he’s rubbish. I’m proud to side with him. As you can see from my quote, he knows his science. Which is more than your post shows.
Starwatcher says: October 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Do you guys really want to defend Monckton and Delingpole? You know they make skeptics look really bad, right?
=========================================================
Starwatcher. Wrong. Sceptics look neither good nor bad nor even indifferent. They are simply sceptical of things – especially things that don’t add up. What they look like is of no moment – so what is your point if any?
As for Lord Monckton and Mr. Delingpole they seem to me to be quite capable of defending themselves without anyone’s help.
Doug
It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists…
What, precisely, is an MP or MEP if not a party political activist? Innocent virgins swanning around the lake of integrity?
Starwatcher says:
October 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Do you guys really want to defend Monckton and Delingpole? You know they make skeptics look really bad, right?
=========================================
On the contrary.
And if YOU are a skeptic, with asinine statements like that, then I can say with overwhelming confidence, that the finger of making us “look bad”, is pointed squarely back at you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
[trimmed, incomplete thought. Robt]
Does this Vice Chancellor have a name? So far all we know of him is the office, or title; a name by which authority can be wielded. My guess is that the VC was persuaded by others, likely lower in rank, to perform the disinvite. Normally a decision by such a high-ranking official is not questioned, let alone resisted; his capitulation is a welcome development.
Hey mod (Robt) there must have been an unknown attachment to my post because you presented it exactly as I wrote it and I meant it.
So….whatever you trimmed…..was not mine.
Cheers
Chris
{The last phrase? OK. ‘Tis gone, t’will ne’er be seen again…..8<) Robt]
I wish we (the U.S.) had a Lord Monckton. We get an Al Gore… sigh. Maybe we can make a trade?
How, exactly, does he make skeptics look bad? The guy is sharp as a tack, and quite fun to listen to besides.
Th e Vice Chancellor of UEA is
The Hon Edward David Joseph Lyon-Dalberg-Acton FRHistS,
He has recently been in the news in UK for being involved in the saga of the Oxburgh report. A slimy and unctuous individual IMHO, you can watch him and his cronies getting a light grilling from Parliament earlier this week here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/27/stc-recording.html
Watch also for his faithful sidekick Davies. Who plays Smithers to his Burns. An even more unpleasant and shifty cove.
If I were invited to lunch with him, I think I’d choose to be washing my hair or sorting out my sock drawer rather than have to spend a couple of hours in his company. But Monckers and Dellers are probably made of sterner stuff.
On reflection, I would accept Ed Acton’s invite, and then fervently hope that I was bad enough to be disinvited once he found out who I was.
A disinvitation to lunch at UEA must rank among the highest accolades a sceptic can achieve. An honour to wear with pride.
I wonder if you’d get a nice disinvitation card to put on your mantelpiece to impress your friends and colleagues?
with a h/t to wikipedia this about sums up why they cannot face their opponents in argument, they don’t have one that a rational and thinking person can accept :
“The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”
I normally side with fellow sceptics, but I can’t get excited about this. If I am invited to a party, and the person who invited me says I can bring a couple of friends, surely it is up to me to respect my host and not bring along their ex or their worst enemy. By inviting Delingpole and Monckton, Helmer was being provocative, and is therefore himself guilty of bad manners, by putting his host in an embarrassing position.
Annabelle: false analogy. The party in your hypothetical is (to me, anyway) a social event among friends, or at least not a “working event” to which people bring their agendas. The UAE lunch was not a party, it was rubber chicken and grip-and-grin between members of one institution in their official capacity, and an elected official whose favorable informed opinion toward the institution was going to be useful. Your example would work only if Helmer were just a bloke on the street, without pull or power, with whom the VC and the faculty were friends. Many official gatherings like this bring together people who, in their private lives, would be at daggers drawn. They put it aside to get the job done. Which just points up, once again, how unfit the VC and his faculty are for their positions.
Reference the comments from Doug, son of mudder, Dave, Rocky H and George E Smith, nothing I said in my post negates the fact that Viscount Monckton is an effective communicator of flaws in the arguments of the climate science community. But, similar points to the ones I made are put even more forcibly in blogs of those who wish to minimise his arguments and who imply that a man who distorts his CV is not to be trusted.
Commenting on some of Jones remarks in the CRU emails Gavin Schmidt said “Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice man.” A corollary of this is that Monckton’s scientific case is not strengthened by embellishments his CV.
Tucci78:
“Might it be possible to have someone in Blighty explain to us colonials just what the heck justifies the scorn in which “the Polytechnics” seem to be held over there?”
I’m a Blightyite in my late forties and for as long as I can recall it has been traditional to scorn polytechnics (and especially former ones that are now universities).
example: “That’s not a proper university, it’s just a Poly that has rebranded”.
A similar tradition used to exist between Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, and likewise between Public and Grammar schools. We have a long and hallowed tradition of snobbery over here, likewise we tend to look up to people “of breeding” regardless of their intelligence, although these things are much less the case than they were perhaps 100 years ago.
I’d have lunch with Monckton, although I’d like him to buy more of the beers as he has more money than me by several orders of magnitude. However, seeing as he accepts (and has posted here sometime back) that increased manmade CO2 in our atmosphere will cause warming, we can move past that very basic bit and get on to more advanced details. Climate sensitivity over Guinness sounds like fun, even if we agreed to differ at the end 🙂
Cheers – John
Academics aren’t all bad you know. At least one I am aware of was knighted through certain parties bugging my PC, on which I had written a spoof letter in the style of Lady Thatcher, which mentioned a prominent football manager’s power relations with his wife.
It so happened that that manager was already knighted and the scientist who rose to that title had the same first name…….
Rum places, academia……
Tony says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:11 am
[…]
“I am glad it has gone public; so everyone knows just what kind of person that Vice Chancellor really is.”
Hmmm … “Vice Chancellor” = Acton, if memory serves correctly.
For a good number of months, to my mind, Acton’s more appropriate title would be “Chancellor of aVarICE” … an historian who’s in the same league as James Cameron, the director of aVaTAR … [where V=voluble and/or vociferous and/or venal)
Acton’s performance at the Oct 27 U.K. House of Commons Science & Technology Committee invitational encore strongly suggests that his “Vice” is characterized by all 3 V’s: voluble, vociferous and venal.
@george E. Smith:
What you say regarding titles is correct, however, the United States has a long-standing tradition of not honoring titles and hereditary peerages, to the extent that the US constitution actually forbids Americans from receiving them. Therefore it might be proper to address Christopher Monckton as Lord in the United Kingdom, but Americans are under no constraint to do so, and I think Christopher Monckton understands and respects the American position on this.
An education in the Classics means the Greek and Latin classics, usually. Greek is wonderful for sharpening rational thought and rhetoric.
If memory serves, Christopher Monckton was deeply involved in stopping the coal workers’ strike in Thatcher’s Britain. MI5/6 had decided it was a Soviet provocation.
Christopher Monckton is also a member of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, one of the few “states” recognized fairly widely but without a national territory. There are competing claims among different organizations all claiming to be the authentic SoM. I might be wrong but I believe Christopher Mockton belongs to the SoM recognized by the Vatican.
All that aside, what he says makes sense, and I would accept his arguments even were he a homeless man with bloodshot eyes raving at passers-by.
RC Saumarez says:
October 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm
“Might it be possible to have someone in Blighty explain to us colonials just what the heck justifies the scorn in which “the Polytechnics” seem to be held over there?”
In the UK, the Polytechnics were mainly set up in the sixties as part of the (politically motivated) enlargement of “higher education”. They were primarily vocational training establishments for students who couldn’t get a place at any of the universities, even the second rank “red-bricks”, or who simply wanted a more practical and less academic course. The polytechnics were never true universities; their breadth of study was limited, they did little or no academic research, and their focus was always on churning out the maximum number of graduates in those fields the politicians considered most valuable. Since the country was somewhat pro-engineering at that time, they produced a lot of good engineers. The better places (like Manchester Polytechnic) were quite highly regarded – as polytechnics. But when it became politically unacceptable to admit that some places can be better than others at some things, and the polytechnics were rebranded as universities and revamped to hide the fact that they were originally different by design, they lost the respect they might have honestly earned as polytechnics, and gained the contempt due to their dishonest posing as real universities.
Noteworthy: the civil tone of the correspondence.
(Excessive partisanship [in sharp contrast] is an absolutely inferior strategy.)
An observation about the fragrant Lord Monckton and UKIP. If you visit the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) website and read their manifesto policies on energy and the environment you will find the following;
“[If elected we would] Freeze all state funding for scientific research into ‘global warming’”
“Jolly good show”, I hear you cry, “serve those alarmists right”.
But think about it. The posters here pride themselves on doing “real science”. Galileo is mentioned frequently. How do you all feel about working in a country where the government tells you what you can and cannot research? In Lord M’s Little England dreamworld there will no longer be a debate about the science of global warming because he will have eradicated any academic opposition to his point of view.
Having the vapours about being invited to lunch looks rather petty in comparison.
Visitor from Venus,
The key issue is “state funding.” And the UKIP doesn’t go nearly far enough, only promising to freeze state funding, when climate “studies” should be de-funded.
There are always more things that the recipients want funded than there is tax money available. You seem to think that state funding of these climate charlatans is their entitlement. It is not, and they’ve fattened at the public trough for far too long, without producing anything remotely valuable enough to justify the astronomical expense. Furthermore, they have schemed and lied keeping the climate scare going.
If you wish to contribute to their lifestyle, you are free to do so. Just don’t demand that the rest of us must continue to fund this “global warming” scam.
@ Visitor from Venus – I can tell you from my own personal experience that so-called ‘centres for higher learning’ in the UK are involved in in promulgating government groupspeak in a manner that is highly proscribed by various arms of the State. The authorities have created a climate of fear which is as close as this old colonial, for one, has ever come to working in a police state. No wonder my forbears began fleeing the Puritans during the 17th century and my English cousins who remaned here were stoic during the WWII Blitz – they have had to be stoic for generations.
It is little wonder that the current global-warming-is-all-due-to-wicked-mankind BS is almost universally taught here as it comes from government-funded scientists. The current fuss about disinvitations is merely another symptom of how badly flustered and on the back foot are the tinpot tyrants in charge of institutions and have subverted the essential nobility of scientific research and teaching by conniving in a global fraud to maintain their government funding. The enquiries that have been mounted in the various institutions in this country are a disgrace and the formerly comfortable senior science aparatchiks know that their day in the harsh glare of public scorn is fast approaching.
Alexander,
You say this about the UK, but how do you splice that notion into the wider world? Everywhere, in every country, climatology is being researched, just as are biology, geology and so on, and similar results are being published. Monckton himself accepts that manmade carbon dioxide is causing warming: he disputes the extent (i.e. the sensitivity).
So for your view to hold water, there are three possibilities, which I’ll list in my order of likeliness:
1) The almost 200-year-old research into the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide continues to see more evidence being found that supports its validity;
3a) Climate scientists in each and every nation, from institutions funded by a whole variety of political regimes, are in on a conspiracy;
3b) They (Black Helicopter types) palmed mysterious pharmaceuticals into the coffee-vendors in the climate-research institutes of every country that made the scientists suffer a mass-hallucination.
1) will do me, personally. The others come an undignified joint 3rd. I agree with Monckton that the heat-trapping properties of CO2 are undeniable but where I choose to differ with him is in the uncertainties department – sensitivity, types of & nature of feedbacks and so on. It is quite right to accept the notion that uncertainties exist in all areas of science – we don’t know, with 100% certainty, why some people recover from cancer whilst others don’t, for example. Blogosphere science would be far more stimulating if it was those things that we all were to focus upon, and in that light it was good to see e.g. Walt Meier given posting-room on here recently.
You state: “the formerly comfortable senior science aparatchiks know that their day in the harsh glare of public scorn is fast approaching”.
This is a value judgement, with no basis in science. It does show what poor bed-mates science and politics are, even though to an extent one needs the other!
Cheers – John
I think you may all be missing a vital point here.
Reading the Monckton letter we find that lunch at 12.30 is for Acton, Davies, Liss & Andrews, with guests Helmer MEP and Agnew MEP.
At 1.30 Helmer & Agnew leave.
After 1.30 Monckton is allowed a late lunch, watched by Acton, Davies,Liss and Andrews. I cannot see any mention of Delingpole being ‘re-invited’.
So would you like to tuck into the ‘left-overs’ by yourself, while those 4 looked on ?
As Delingpole is currently in India checking on ‘bio-diversity loss among the leopard population’ it is questionable whether he could ever have attended.
The science fraudsters can’t defend their global warming mysticism, so they cower from any debate with knowledgeable skeptics who dare to challenge the “consensus” viewpoint. They are modern-day PT Barnums, preying on an all-too-trusting public with scare stories and crank CO2 cure-alls.
Send in the clowns…..
But what else do you expect from a third rate, mickey mouse, so-called “university”? The greater damage has been done by the vested-interest fraudsters at the Royal Society, who have persuaded the UK government to feather their nests with billions for carbon capture and wind farms. This, in an almost bankrupt country that now has aircraft carriers with no aircraft?
Send in the clowns.
Roger,
Calm down, dear chap!
Cameron et al do know about Peak Oil. I know full well they do. You might even welcome the odd wind-turbine dotted about once the proverbial hits the fan!
Two problems – one solution. Dare we act intelligently for a change? That is the question. I’m not holding my breath on that!
Cheers – John
Josh mentions ‘Lucia’ at ‘The Blackboard’ covering the story of ‘Lunchgate’. Well worth a visit.
“””” maelstrom says:
October 29, 2010 at 2:23 am
@george E. Smith:
What you say regarding titles is correct, however, the United States has a long-standing tradition of not honoring titles and hereditary peerages, to the extent that the US constitution actually forbids Americans from receiving them. Therefore it might be proper to address Christopher Monckton as Lord in the United Kingdom, but Americans are under no constraint to do so, and I think Christopher Monckton understands and respects the American position on this. “”””
Well actually maelstrom; since this is a fully international forum; we shouldn’t pay too much attention to what is US practice.
But since you did raise the issue; “” the US constitution actually forbids Americans from receiving them. “” then it is ok for us to discuss it.
And my first comment would be that your assertion (excerpted above) is completely false. The Constitution of the United States contains no such restriction; or anything like it.
Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution DOES provide that THE UNITED STATES shall not issue any “Title of Nobility” to ANYONE, American citizen or not; nobody; no matter what.
In addition the Constitution provides that no United States Officer may accept any Titles or gifts (other broad categories). One may argue that the United States Officer applies to the State Officers as well, since the Article refers to holding an office under THEM (after having used the term United States.
You have to keep in mind that the “United States” is a political entity that is one of the three parties to the contract that is the Constitution. Specifically it is THE ENTITY whose “common defense and general welfare” is to be “provided for” by Taxes which the Congress is authorized to “lay and collect” (That’s in Article I, section 8 in case you need to look). That plus paying the debts of the United States, are the ONLY things that the Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes for. CAN YOU spell deficit spending ?
Meanwhile back at Section 9; in addition to “The United States”, the 57 Sovereign States are also one of the contractual parties to the Constitution; so arguably when article 9 says “under them” after referring to the “United States” one could argue that the separate States themselves as well as that Washington DC cesspool are meant.
So in Street slang; the USA can’t grant titles to anyone; citizen or not; and government officers can’t receive titles or gifts from others presumably foreign, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS.
But ordinary US citizens or legal residents most certainly can accept foreign titles.
You Americans really need to read your Constitution and find out what it says and what it doesn’t say.
Well I’m an American; just not a citizen; and I apologise if I got any of this wrong; I sometimes wonder if I’m still a candidate for Alzheimer’s.
But back to Lord Monckton; it still is quite appropriate for Americans (but not mandatory), including American Government officials. to use his title to address him. No it isn’t ok to go around asking; “say Chris what is Queenie up to these days ?”
Yes America took a different path; and that is commendable; but the Founding Fathers, and the Framers did not decide to institutionalize just plain rudeness, and the image of “The Ugly American”.
So yes Lord Monckton speaks to us less formally and accepts us doing likewise with him; You Citizen Yanks can do that; but although now an American; I’m also still British too (by accident of parental ancestry); and I don’t neglect tradition.
For me it is just “not cricket” to be boorish (for me). And no I don’t meaan that Yanks are boorish if they don’t use his title; not at all; but it would be for me.
And yes I should explain that to me Yanks is a term of endearment; and does not discriminate between north and south where it is a technical term.
There is nothing wrong with just being polite to people; it’s even American to be that way.
And I should add the legal disclaimer that IANAL so none of the above is any legal advice; it simply is my application of The King’s English to what I remember of that part of the US Constitution.
I suppose you Googleistas can go and look it up, and correct me, if I got some of it wrong. Do y’alls remember even the punctuation when you learn something ? I try to, but sometimes I get commas and semi-colons switched. But I usually don’t transpose parts of the Declaration if Independence, and mistakenly put them in the Constitution; like “right to life” and such things; no excuse for mixing things up like that.
Re Tucci78 and name snobbery in UK academic institutions.
Everything has to be called a University over here in the UK. The Polytechnics in the UK developed out of vocational Technical Colleges that awarded qualifications such as HNC or HND that were approximately equivalent to say 1 and half or 2 years of a conventional 3 year Bachelors degree course. More often than not, they did not have the right to award their own degrees and were overseen by another more senior institution. Some of the Polytechnics were academically advanced and did some research but they rarely compared with Oxbridge or the Redbricks such as Manchester. In the last 20 years or so, almost every tertiary educational institution in the UK has renamed itself as a University with very little change in real academic standing. To my knowledge, only Imperial College has resisted the urge to rename and rebrand but people more familiar with the UK scene might be able to add some more to the list.
Thanks John,
But it is difficult to remain calm whilst surveying the greatest scientific fraud in history. Plitdown man must be turning in his grave!
I will take some pills and lie down in a dark room.
Previous comments say “they loose data” and ” don’t want to loose their carbon cash bonanza”.
From what? Was it too tight?
[Reminder: Confusus say: “Those who throw lose stones at glass typerighters loose footing on slippery slope.” .. 8<) Robt]
—
At 12:23 AM on 29 October, John Mason had responded with a polite and chatty non-answer to my question about “…ust what the heck justifies the scorn in which “the Polytechnics” seem to be held” in the United Kingdom, and while I appreciate the effort, I already know that
…
Mr. Mason’s effort, unfortunately, doesn’t explain why this should be so.
Fortunately, at 10:24 AM on 29 October, SidF offered amplification, writing:
…
Now, that seems parsimoniously to more thoroughly satisfy my curiosity. Here in these United States, the past century or so has seen a tendency for the dozens upon dozens of two-bit cow colleges (which have long been formally accredited degree-granting institutions) to jump themselves up into “university” status.
My own alma mater – a Jesuit-run outfit with its primary campus small enough to fit within one city block – did this some years after I’d graduated despite the fact that the administrators were only able to grant advanced degrees (Master’s, not doctorates) in chemistry, marketing, and “education” – which last I do not even consider a valid field of academic study, and treat with both hatred and scorn.
Well…marketing, too. As cartoonist Scott Adams recently observed: “That’s just liquor and guessing.”
None of the American technical institutes to which I’d made reference – CalTech, MIT, Stevens, RPI – had never, to the best of my personal appreciation, been at any stage in their respective histories “overseen by another more senior institution,” and had always been qualified to grant undergraduate (and later graduate) degrees.
I suppose that the closest thing in America to what are called “the Polytechnics” in the U.K. are what we call “technical schools,” which accord certification (documentary proof that the student had satisfactorily completed a course of study in a particular technical area) but not academic degrees.
I tend to think of a nursing school which trains its students specifically to qualify as Registered Nurses (R.N.) as opposed to colleges which turn out graduates with Bachelor of Science in Nursing (B.S.N.) degrees.
Of course in my professional experience, the clinical expertise, fund of knowledge, and overall quality of those people trained in long-established “diploma mill” nursing schools tend to be a helluva lot better than what one finds in the B.S.N. types churned out by the “colleges,” but what the hell….
—
The disinvitations are reflective of a mindset that believes itself above the need to consider proper courtesy and protocol. Hence, those they consider below their own exalted status as celebrities, academics, government bureaucrats and the like should suck up the insults without complaint. Snobbery at its ugliest.
—
At 4:00 AM on 29 October, Visitor From Venus had written:
…
Not quite true. What that policy says is that government funding for scientific research into “global warming” would be frozen, and this is indeed a start on a jolly good idea.
On what grounds does an agency like civil government extort from the private citizenry (holding folks at gunpoint and growling “Your money or your life!” as makes no difference whatsoever) spending power with which to fund scientific research?
Not surprisingly, it is on the premise – sometimes very tenuous – that such research can and will result in knowledge amounting to a material advantage on the battlefield. That’s even the reason why governments fund research into public health; those of us well-versed in military history know full well that up until the early 20th Century, the overwhelming preponderance of morbidity and mortality in armies has been due to communicable diseases, not enemy action, and as warfare became industrialized and whole civilian populations became critically important to the strategic conduct of armed conflict, governments had more than sufficient reason to prioritize the maintenance of physical well-being on the “home front” as well.
In this light, let us then reconsider government (“Your money or your life!”) taxpayer funding for the utterly worthless “scientific research into [anthropogenic] ‘global warming’”.
If there is no real scientific basis whatsoever to hold that man-made global warming can be attributed to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions – and I submit that everything coming to light today (as well as over the past thirty years and more) demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is not only a blunder but a fraud – then there is no justification at all for any government anywhere on the planet to fund “scientific research into [anthropogenic] ‘global warming’” of any kind whatsoever.
The proper policy position of the UKIP (and all other political parties) should not be to “Freeze all state funding for scientific research into ‘global warming’” but to zero it out altogether.
To shove the AGW fraudsters away from the public feeding trough, and maybe even follow up with criminal prosecutions and lawsuits for civil damages, both compensatory and punitive. There’s certainly the suspicion of peculation a-plenty in the ranks of the “Hockey Team.”
This has nothing to do with whether or not “the government tells you what you can and cannot research” but rather whether or not you can do that research at public expense.
If George Soros or some equally rotten son-of-indeterminate-parentage who has deep personal pockets wants to cough up cash to support the “Cargo Cult Science” of the global warming alarmists, that’s not forfended by the stated UKIP policy at all, is it?
But no more bleeding the suffering and entirely unwilling private citizenry to advance the cause of thieving charlatans whose objective has never been more than to secure their own wealth and influence by compelling the average subject of Her Majesty to a condition of poverty and suffering such that he will find himself freezing to death in the dark.
—
——————
Roger Longstaff,
I find a good lowland single malt Scotch or two will always do the trick.
Good luck and take care.
John
>>Translation:
>>“Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
>>Persist in this farce, and the story of your cowardly prevarication
>>will be front-page news tomorrow!”
Especially as you are disinviting a journo from the Telegraph.
Don’t even go there….. !!
.
I fully support Roger Helmer, and Lord Monckton in the excellent work they are doing in exposing the antropogenic climate con.
Terri Jackson founder energy group, Institute of Physics, london
[snip – look up “graves disease” ~mod]