This is a press release from CFACT sent to me. Post your Kicks or Kudos here, your choice, but play nice and be mindful of blog policy as moderators are standing by to snip your call. – Anthony
Target: Monckton
Have you noticed the kicking around that CFACT Advisor Lord Christopher Monckton’s been getting lately?
Add to the title “Viscount of Brenchley,” “whipping boy du jour.” Seldom a recent day goes by without some new name calling or conspiracy theory attacking Lord Monckton echoing through the left-wing blogosphere.
Why is Chris Monckton the victim of a global warming attack campaign? Effectiveness. Few have been so brilliantly effective at debunking the global warming scare as this compellingly articulate British Lord.
Lord Monckton does his homework. He scours the scientific literature. He devours every word and graph. He is in constant contact with a vast network of leading scientists throughout the world. He wades past the executive summaries and masters the details. He checks the math, checks the logic, and checks the consistency of what is claimed about our climate. He synthesizes global warming science and policy raising vital questions that provoke thought in the mind of any expert or layman with an open mind.
Despite the nearly unimaginable sums available to the global warming folks – despite their command of the media, the politicians in their thrall and the carbon profiteers lining up at the taxpayer’s trough, Lord Monckton and his allies are winning. Like the child who revealed that the Emperor had no clothes, Lord Monckton wakes the good sense of those who hear him. The public has caught on.
The warming propaganda machine has lost its momentum and is desperate to get it back. They want to silence Lord Monckton and remove him from the field. To that end they’ll say anything. They attack his title hoping we won’t notice that every British Viscount has a right and by long tradition is called “Lord.” They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites. Lord Monckton had hoped that by using the IPCC’s data warming advocates would be forced to debate the merits. Sadly, they continue to alternate between mocking the data and restating their conclusions as received wisdom. Yet when granted a fair forum for debate, it is Monckton who triumphs. Just weeks ago his team of experts were voted the winners in a warming debate at the Oxford Union – a treasured haven of free thought.
Last year Lord Monckton gave a presentation on global warming in St. Paul Minnesota that became a sensation on YouTube. This inspired Prof. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas to attack his presentation in a lengthy video. Lord Monckton has refuted Prof. Abraham using his own medium. The first of a series of videos setting the record straight are being released today and we invite you to view them.
As CFACT has said before, the chain of logic behind global warming claims does not hold up. Lord Christopher Monckton will neither be silenced, nor ignored. As Mahatma Gandhi told us, “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I only found the intro. Is the rest of the hour there? Or somewhere?
Here’s the link to the Monckton Refutes Abraham video series on youtube. The other parts are hard to find from the link in the article and the Intro video part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Monckton+refutes+Abraham%22&aq=f
Friends:
AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.
If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.
But they cannot fault his statements in any significant manner, so they attack him with the intent that by discrediting him they will induce people to ignore what he says.
This tactic is known as Playing The Man Instead Of The Ball.
So, the attacks on Monckton prove he is acurately addressing the AGW scare.
As WW2 bomber pilots said;
“You always know when you are over the target because that is when you get the most flack”.
Richard
I was wondering how the Lord Monckton Vs Prof Abrahams thing was going…I avidly read his pdf refutations and was hoping he was successful in getting his apology and charitable donation.
Whither Al Gore (WAG) ? (Formerly AGW Report)
ICE melts.
…-
“ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange-sources”
” * ICE to cut around half of 50-person CCX workforce
* 1st round of layoffs began July 23, more to come in autumn
* Sources cite U.S. climate inaction as main reason for cuts
* ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse”
“ICE just came in one day and started hacking away … We were told the company was restructuring,” said one source, who declined to be named.”
“… prices for the carbon credits traded on the bourse since its 2003 launch, which were based on voluntary but legally binding emissions reduction commitments by its members, have crashed to around 10 cents a tonne from all-time highs of over $7 in 2008, and trading volumes have largely dried up.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6791WI20100811
See here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
for a detailed description of how the “IPCC data” Monckton uses in his graphs does not actually match that publiched by the IPCC.
Now RockyRoad says
(Of course, if the IPCC’s data is spurious or false, citing or using such isn’t the right think to do.)
Which in fact Monckton’s argument – if you read his response to John Abraham, specifically regarding the graph comparing global temperatures in the last decade against IPCC projections, he admits that the “IPCC” trend shown in his graph is greater than that for the IPCC’s A2 scenario which it apparently represents, but explains that away by saying that essentially the IPCC got its sums wrong.
But even if I was to accept for arguments sake that this is true, it is besides the point. The IPCC’s projections are what they are, whether they arrived at them by fair means or foul. If you are going to compare them to actual temperature changed then you have to do it on the basis of what the IPCC actually predicted, not what you might thing it should have predicted.
The left enjoys slanderng those who disagree with them. It’s their favorite hobby. Regan, Bush, Bush, Palin, Rush, Thatcher, etc. But I’ve notices that there’s an increase in the hysterical AGW antics. When is that UN meeting at Cancun?
Monckton is a good man. I like him. Of course the AGW crowd attacks him.
It is because they know he makes a difference. With his facts.
Lord Monckton is intelligent, educated, articulate and devastatingly accurate in his presentations. I echo sentiments expressed above that, as a Brit, I can still find someone British in whom I can feel a great deal of pride. I cannot extend that sentiment to any of our present politicians, all of whom worship at the altar of Climate Change.
I would dearly like to watch a debate between Monckton and ANY representative that the pro-AGW group might care to put forward.
Many of the questions asked above would be answered, unequivocally.
BTW, I, as an Englishman, use the honorific ‘Lord’ as a matter of courtesy, not as subservience.
Thank you Lord Monckton.
It is a pleasure to hear what you consider important to the scientific discussion of climate. Wish all the energy to persist.
Thank you WUWT for bringing focus and a venue.
John
Here is an example , Monckton on Crosstalk;
Monckton is feared and attacked by the Alarmists because he has always has been better at their own game than they are. He recognized early on that the climate debate is really a propaganda battle and has approached it on that basis. When he first appeared in his fight I assumed he was regurgitating talking points assembled by others, but over time and especially with his refutation of Abraham’s nonsense it became clear his intelligence is exceptional and his knowledge encyclopedic. I can’t say I think he has been entirely correct in every statement he’s made on the topic, but he shares that distinction with every other person on the planet, including myself, and his batting average is well ahead of anyone else with a similar number of plate appearances.
What makes him dangerous to the alarmists is his ability to garner publicity for the skeptical argument even in the face of the world wide media blackout. The success he has achieved in this almost single handed fight against the massive CAGW propaganda machine is a tribute to his skill and intelligence, aided of course by the truth he has behind his arguments. Given enough time and money anyone can sell soap, but it’s a lot easier if the soap you’re selling will actually clean anything.
Lord Monckton may have an instinctive view of climate change which is well observed and worthy of support. But don’t kid yourselves regarding his other attributes. He is a senior member of one of the most right wing parties in Europe ( UKIP) and is not, I repeat , is not, a member of the house of Lars. His letterheads are slightly different and the House of Lords has formally asked him to cease the pretence that he belongs to that August body. He is a hereditary peer, the sort of guy Americans fought to be free from in the war of independence. He has hit the jackpot with his understanding of climate change, but don’t decieve yourselves, Lord Monkton has the sort of politics most people would want not want to be linked to.
And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.
Obviously, you are as daft about Americans as you are climatology. Conservative Americans, first and foremost, are pragmatic to a fault. If it gets the job done, use it. If it pisses the neighbors off, use it on their property. GET ER DONE LORD MONCKTON
The Warmers are flummoxed by Monckton because they don’t realize the Brits have not only managed to master the English language (gasp!), they even know how to use that talent to verbally skewer their opponents (horrors!). Go watch the awesome give-and-take in the House of Commons, or Galloway’s verbal clubbing of the Congressional committee that tried to nail him down on his whacko ideas. Add facts to that talent, and the Warmers are understandably apoplectic because they can’t lay a glove on him. And if they ever do, he’ll easily win on points.
I watched the first 7 parts and, though the message is very clear and to the point, the sound and video quality are distracting.
John Egan says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
“He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.”
When new and deadly infectious diseases arise, isolation of the infected population has always been the most effective prescription for preventing epidemics from developing. That political correctness prevented the strategy from being implemented in the case of HIV/AIDS has resulted in tens of millions of dead and dying around the world. Monckton’s suggested policy proposal may have seemed draconian, but given the end result it is hard to argue that he was wrong in suggesting it.
John Egan says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.
He calls himself a Tory, yet dashes off to the UKIP whenever convenient.
That’s a whole different story. The UKIP are the Eurosceptic party in the UK. The “Conservative’ party is anything but.
The financial links between the EU and the IPCC are well documented.
AGW scepticism and Euro-scepticism are not unrelated.
“first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Calljng someone an ‘overcooked shrimp’, is that ridiculing?
Threatening someone with a lawsuit, is that fighting?
I see we have a good number of overcooked sea crustaceans here.
I am glad to be in the world sharing air with Lord Monckton. May he live long and prosper.
To those who would attack or question his words, ideas, and person: why not e-mail him directly to get his response? Maybe you can persuade him directly and convince him of his “errors”, or more likely become a slight amount more civil yourselves.
I just want to say Thank You to all the kind readers of Anthony Watts’ magnificent blog who have so kindly indicated their support for what we are all trying to do: to seek and speak the truth. I am very touched by what so many of you have been kind enough to say.
I do hope that many of you will have the chance to look through some of the 24 10-minute video clips that constitute my oral response to Professor Abraham. Working with CFACT, I thought it right to answer his points in some detail, so that anyone who is interested will have a fair chance to decide for himself who is closest to the objective truth.
Some commenters have suggested that I have misused IPCC or other data in my graphs. You will find the graphs I have used in my presentation inserted at the right points in the narrative. If any of you have any doubts about where the graphs came from, or how the data were compiled, please feel free to ask. I try to answer all such queries, because the scientific method requires that anyone who asserts a result must be willing to explain how he got there, so that others can replicate his work by following his route and identifying any errors. If there are genuine errors, I shall do my best to correct them. It is very easy for a layman like me to make mistakes: but there were really not that many in my Minnesota presentation – and certainly nothing like as many as Professor Abraham suggested.
Thank you all again.
AGHH I’m quite touched by your confession. It gives me hope too, for others.
I agree with Bill Tuttle who says
and would add, Monckton has consistently reined in his temper, compared with which his opponents consistently play shamefully dirty.
Now would you say I’m straying into ad hom in saying that, or am I merely being accurate and fair? Now I once believed the AGW thugs, and kept away from even looking at Monckton. When I started to doubt the thugs, one of the things I checked was the quantity of dirty innuendo, smears, ad hom, on both sides… and guess who won for civility, hands down. Monckton. That was one of the biggest reasons I started to take him seriously. And started to enjoy his peppery but now clearly well-deserved, accurately-aimed occasional rudeness. Occasional, that is, in comparison…
Monckton speaks infinitely more sense than the warmers. A small IPCC example:
“Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts. Rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future might unfold.”
In order to be able to make scary predictions (sorry scenarios) – while not be held to their predictions (err sorry scenarios).
Sadly for the warmers, the more they attack Lord Chris, the more people will be inspired to conduct their own fact checking exercises. Eventually, even the politicos will know what Unit Roots and PCA are – and real scientists will be regretting giving the climate phrenologists their science-less latitude for many years.
Jeremy says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:11 am
I’m new to this attack on him. From what I’ve seen of his presentations, he does indeed pull graphics directly from IPCC reports. Do you have an examples of where this is not so, or where he is incorrectly claiming to use IPCC data?
In a nutshell, he replaced an exponential curve with a linear one and gets a CO2 prediction that is too high, and then plugs this inflated value into a climate sensitivity formula without accounting for the thermal inertia of the earth, inflating it even more.
There’s a lengthy post about it at RealClimate.