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.
Stephan says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:19 am
OT looking very very sad for AGW these days
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
If NH ice continues like this, the AGW crowd will have to concede virtual complete defeat this year. They have been wrong wrong wrong all along LOL
Looking here I see the current extent for the Arctic is the 2nd lowest of the satellite era. I’m not exactly sure what you are cheering about.
James Sexton says:
August 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Robert, did you bother to read the post you referenced? First, they were arguing one point out of the plethora of points Monckton has made. If that’s the best they can do, they need to quit now. Further, the argument is side-splittingly laughable.
Did you read the RealClimate post too? That highlights quite a lot more problems than just 1.
I’m not saying they didn’t have a point, but again, if that’s the best they can do against Monckton, they need to cut their losses and throw in the towel.
You might think it is only 1 point, but I think we can agree that global temperature predictions are the most important. So I wouldn’t dismiss it that easily. If he messes up that, what’s the value of his other arguments?
Remembering all the hoopla over the errors in AR4 I do see a problem here with double standards.
In the last video (part 6), he talks about the MWP and how they abolished it. Monkton says it’s because they removed proxy data from that period and used other data.
I know that they hid the decline by removing the proxy that came after the 60’s and grafted instrumental data. But did they do something at another point to remove the MWP as well? Either way, the data was altered, but if it wasn’t the MWP data that was altered, perhaps someone should inform Monkton. At least, that section might deserve a second look if Monkton meant something else (like using proxy data that was known to be unreliable in order to remove the MWP, with hopefully information to back up that assertion).
[SNIP. Since Lord Monckton had commented in this thread, there will be no name-calling, such as ‘liar, ‘buffoon,’ etc. ~dbs, mod.]
The ad hominem attacks we see here are a diversion from Monckton’s science, and follow the Alinsky script: always personalize the attacks against the individual, and don’t ever respond to what he is saying. No one is right 100.0% of the time, but Monckton is open about his work and corrects it when [rarely] necessary.
Contrast that openness with someone like Michael Mann — who hides out from any questions that are not pre-vetted through a trusted propaganda outlet. To this day, over twelve years after MBH98, Mann still refuses to disclose his Hokey Stick methodology, even after Steve McIntyre proved that he had used the Tijlander data upside down, and many other equally egregious blunders.
Very well said.
It’s funny seeing the criticisms of Monckton here, as they are all unsubstantiated or ad hominem or refer to blog posts that attack a very minor point in a much larger argument. It basically proves the article right!
In my opinion, for what it may be worth, there are two main ‘debaters’ on the heretic’s side. These are Monckton and McIntyre (apologies to all the others who are battling away, but these two seem to get the most information ‘out there’). McIntyre is the cautious analytical polite guy (and not really an AGW heretic anyway) and Monckton is the flamboyant ruthless media guy, it seems to me. Both are influential in their own way. SM pretty much cannot be found wrong on any point but is not a polished public speaker IMO, and CM cannot be matched in the public forum, but even though he can cite huge amounts of real data and papers, may be guilty of being ‘economical with the truth’ (h/t Sir Humphrey, Yes Minister) at times. His opponents are often left flat-footed and hurling insults, which is just funny.
They both get equal, and equally nasty, coverage from the hard-line AGW church, and that must make them both proud. I’d love to see what the current emails within the ‘Team’ say about Monckton, but then again, perhaps they’ve learnt their lesson on the emails thing…..
@ur momisugly John F. Hultquist (August 12, 2010 at 11:59 am) said: “[T]his [rifle sight is] an image from the original CFACT press release;…. WUWT only used the original but didn’t create it.”
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess Monckton has a bit of a martyr complex.
hmm ok, may I rephrase
If Lord Monckton has any complaints about those who criticize him, why does he not sue them for Libel? I heard of one aborted attempt. Since those who criticize him have raised serious legal and ethical issues, why has he not responded in the legal area where *TRUTH* will pervail.
It’s pretty amusing to see the same crowd that likes to imagine that belief in global warming revolves around Al Gore worshipping at the altar of his lordship – “gifted”, “devastatingly accurate”, “humbled”, “nobility”, and one enthusiastic fellow who’s delighted to share the same air as Monckton. You’ll excuse me while I have a little chuckle over that one.
Anne van der Bom says at 3:26 pm [ … ]
That nit has been picked. If you don’t believe so, write Lord Monckton and ask him for his input. It is simply due to different methodologies and makes no difference to the final analysis.
And please stop quoting the troglodytes at the RealClimate echo chamber until they stop censoring scientific skeptics and start to allow different points of view.
“”” harvey says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm
hmm ok, may I rephrase
If Lord Monckton has any complaints about those who criticize him, why does he not sue them for Libel? I heard of one aborted attempt. Since those who criticize him have raised serious legal and ethical issues, why has he not responded in the legal area where *TRUTH* will pervail. “””
Why bother ? Let those who have raised “serious and legal issues” try suing him. Have you heard him uttering any complaints ?
I presume that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ?
He is a gem, the trouble is the AGW crowd do not want facts they want us back in the dark ages, lord Monkton needs all the moral support we can muster, as do all the honest folk who support honesty and integrity.
Richard S Courtney says:
Not only would they have…but they have:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
And, that’s just a small sampling. Even some “lukewarmers” like Lucia admit that Monckton misrepresents the IPCC projections:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/how-moncktonized-ipcc-trends-compare-to-other-versions/
Of course, that won’t stop people like you who want to believe him from either ignoring these demonstrations of Monckton’s falsehoods or incorrect assertions or falsely claiming that they are wrong or have been rebutted by some diatribe that Monckton releases in response. In other words, your point of view is essentially tautology.
And Lord Monckton, If I may:
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!
Monckton is by far, one of the most influencial speakers on Climate, that I’ve ever seen. Beating Gore by a longshot. Gore looks like an idiot after this video:
Bill Illis says:
Not that small…As you noted, with those charts, Monckton produces a slope with the A2 scenario that is 0.34 C per decade, which is clearly in contradiction with what the IPCC directly states as the model projections for the temperature trend over the next few decades:
That’s in the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1, Summary for Policymakers, so one doesn’t have to read very far to see what the IPCC actual projections are…that the projected trends are significantly lower than what Monckton claims and the fact that they are fairly scenario-independent over the next 20 years or so (which isn’t that surprising given that it takes a while for the emissions in the various scenarios to diverge significantly and that half of the rise is projected to be due not to ANY additional emissions but simply to the greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere).
They like to say that because it is true. The pesky fact about climate is that you are dealing with a system in which you have both “signal” and “noise” and the trend over short periods of time is dominated by the noise component. It is exactly for the same reason that the temperature trend here in Rochester over a period of, say, a week or so can be negative in the spring even though there is no denying that the seasonal cycle is strong here and that the predicted temperature trend in the spring is positive.
Of course, when you cherry-pick your starting periods (and sometimes ending periods by ignoring some recent data), there is even more chance that you can find a trend over short time periods that is very different than the trend of the underlying signal.
MattyS: good call
George E. Smith says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm
> I presuem that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ?
Most preceptive!
Except that you can’t pre-sue-’em because it’s unlikely they’ve done anything yet except get a little red faced in the facade.
————–
I have some mixed feelings about Lord Monckton. In some ways I seem him as the skeptics answer to Al Gore – a good communicator secure in his beliefs. (And understands more about the science than Gore ever will.) Like Gore, he knows he can control his audience, he certainly did at the ICCC. I think my biggest discomfort though is seeing people almost reverently casting their allegiance with him. Skeptics really ought to be, well, more skeptical.
On the other hand, he’s so different than Gore – willing to engage pretty much all comers, understands what he’s talking about (though oftens somewhat one-sidedly), and is usually right.
All in all, his dedication, the time spent, and all his travel have certainly helped get the skeptics’ view out and deserves a huge thank you for his efforts.
Hats off to Lord Monckton. Keep exposing AGW for the massive fraud that it is!
Monckton as a target, why ?
I often wonder why this type of info does not gain more visibility. It is stated from primary AGW folks. I know this site has referenced it, but look at the stats Jones presents in this, as an example. Trend for AGW, or really natural GW by virtue his words and stats ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
And some dancing from these guys ? ~~~ it speaks for itself .
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/13/jeff-masters-sets-the-record-straight-on-dana-milbanks-column/
Americans do not like royal snobs, due to the concept that “All men are created equal.” However we have a certain ambiguity in our beliefs, for even though we dislike the idea of an “upper class,” we do like a person who is “classy,” or “a class act,” or a fellow who “displays class.” In other words, we do believe that some people can be excellent.
What made the tiny island of England a huge empire was the fact they honored excellence, and their word (and reward) for excellence was to be deemed ” a lord.”
What has made America a power is because we too honor, or once honored, excellence. But what is our word?
I would like to suggest our word is “Doctor,” rather than “Lord.”
I once worked a menial job where I had to dress up in a suit, and my good buddy liked to embarrass me, when we bopped into a shop for donuts and a coffee, by asking me, “What sort of donut would you like, Doctor Caleb?” My fellow Americans treated me with far more respect on those days I was “Doctor” than they did on other days when, (this was right after 9-11,) this same mischievous buddy would mispronounce my name as, “Kah-leeeb.”
Unfortunately, just as some have made the title “Lord” a joke, others have made the title “Doctor” a joke. When truth is dirtied by fudging, fabricating and flaming fraud,
the title “Doctor” is dirtied.
Do you catch my drift, Doctor Hansen and Doctor Mann?
This is not to say there are not true doctors left in America. Class acts. Classy lovers of Truth. However unless they stand up like Moncton, and display Moncton’s guts, (even though he must feel like the last true lord left in England,) they may find themselves standing as the last true doctor left in America, as America crashes and burns and goes the way of the British Empire.
The word “Lord” was corrupted from its true meaning, into a sign of snobbiness, and a word used with contempt, as in, “He lords it over everyone else.”
The word “Doctor” has also been corrupted from its true meaning, into a sign of corruption, and a word used with contempt, as in, “He doctored the data.”
In my humble opinion, what gives the words “Lord” and “Doctor” true meaning is the attempt to stand by the Truth, at all odds, despite all adversity. If I may be so bold, I’ll say Moncton likely deserves not only the title “Lord,” but a seat in the House of Lords. Or he deserves it more than the mostly gutless nitwits inhabiting that institution. Furthermore, in America Moncton likely deserves to be called “Doctor Moncton,” for he seems to deserve that title more than the mostly gutless nitwits inhabiting our universities.
Monckton is the master of the misleading presentation.
When his slide says 6 cm for sea-level rise, he doesn’t mean it (you have carefully read the other words).
When he says sea ice is increasing in the Beaufort Sea, you are not supposed to assume it is increasing in the Arctic.
When he says global warming has stopped, he later clarifies that he didn’t mean forever.
It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. This is very much a lawyer using tricks of deceit for simple people to fall for. You have to give him credit for the artfulness of misleading without actually lying. Why didn’t he put up the IPCC’s actual sea-level rise, or the Arctic’s actual sea ice trend, or state that he didn’t think warming had stopped for good when he believes those things. It wasn’t an inadvertent withholding of information. It was quite deliberate. He agrees with a lot of what the IPCC says, but you are not going to see him give a clear statement of those things to a live audience.
at: August 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm
andrew adams says:
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.
Here andrew is displaying the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire AGW argument.
Anyone can make a prediction. The more predictions I make, the more likely at least one will turn out correctly. This is not science. It is a fraud used by psychics and soothsayers.
Science relies on testable hypothesis. If AGW is a testable hypothesis, it will make predictions that can be agreed and verified. The predictions are either true to the hypothesis, or they are not.
No matter which way you spin it, the predictions have all failed. Making it up as you go does not help. You are just showing up how confused the AGW camp are because there is zero evidence to support their hypothesis, from the equatorial hot spot, to stratospheric water vapour, to ice caps that fail to melt, to ‘average global” temperatures that fail to rise.
[snip – religious insults – see policy page ~mod]
Glad it’s on video!
Video is mightier than the pen!