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.”
Good to see all the “Real Climate” readers posting here. Once upon a time I used to look at the site once a week or so. But I never go there since they posted an “offer” to skeptical types to “bet” them on projected temperature rise for the next 10 years. I rose to the bait and made a significant “offer” which was promptly “deleted” but they accidentally left a “clarification” posted.
Interesting that they weren’t prepared to put actual money behind their claims. I stopped reading their blog shortly thereafter as it became clear that Real Climate is not a site that believes in open discussion.
Now I consider any use of “Real Climate” as a reference to be useless.
Compellingly articulate British Lord?
[SNIP – Fat Chance. You think you can put one over on a WWII scholar? ~ Evan]
About his eyes, Graves disease, hyperthyroidism, there are some alternative things that could be given a trial run. I wish I could sit and talk to him about it. But then some people don’t like alternative things. Just wishing.
Really? My comment did not make it through moderation? Laughable. Seems like just over a year ago folks cried on here about Realclimate moderating posts.
All I said was Monckton reminds me of Duane Gish, what a horrible and terrible thing!
If I weren’t concerned it would sully his reputation by making him over as a “Yank”, I’d offer we consider Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, a citizen, with full standing, of the free states of America. It would be to our advantage, surely.
Anne van der Bom says:
August 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm
“You might think it is only 1 point, but I think we can agree that global temperature predictions are the most important.”
Uhmm, Anne, the global temp predictions have been consistently wrong. The fact is, I can’t recall a particular global temp prediction to be anywhere close to being correct. Can you point one out to me? If we were to take the predictions seriously, we’d literally all be toast right now, so forgive me if I don’t share your point of view. Perhaps it is because I may be older than you. Not that I’m claiming any inherent knowledge with age, it is just that the predictions of doom and gloom have been going on since before I was born. In my recollections, when I was a child of about 10 years old, we were concerned about climate cooling and we were all going to die because …..same issues as today…….when I was about 20, then we were all going to burn, because…..same issues…..that’s been 20 years……still nothing has happened other than the expense has helped cause a economic melt down. Shouldn’t we, or wouldn’t it be better if we focused on real problems instead of imaginary ones? For 20 years we’ve heard nothing but how we’re killing the planet, all the while people die because our focus is on something that never materializes. You should check what the temps have done for the last 12 of the 20 years. If you can’t see that it is all bs from that, you won’t see. It will be because you refuse to see. There is real enough pain, suffering, and harm done to humanity that you should be able to see past the scam. If you’re worried about people and the world, do something today instead of worrying about a fictional overheating tomorrow that was predicted today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
But, thanks for your insight, it is noted.
Dang it!!! My post went the the nether world again!!! HELP!!!!!
[Found it in the spam filter. Posted now. ~dbs]
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm
“Good to see all the “Real Climate” readers posting here……….”
You wonder, do they realize we can’t post there? I think they understand they are given equal time here.( I hope they do.) Does it ever occur to them why our statements are not posted there? Then one wonders how they rationalize this phenomena? Anyone from RC still here? Can you explain?
Jim D says:
[Monckton] “…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.”
Wow, Jim D is a psychic! He know what people think, and what is or isn’t inadvertent. Jim D must be a whiz at poker.
As always, on instruction from Saul Alinsky, the gorebots make the man the issue, rather than discussing the actual issue. The trolls from RC who wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit ’em on the ankle come over here to practice their ad-homs. Even some folks who should know better sometimes let their base emotions rule them [Haw Haw].
But when there is a “live audience” [of generally warmist types – they can’t be blamed, since the “carbon” propaganda rains down on them 24/7/365] that gets to listen to a real debate, the alarmist PhD’s, pushing CO2 pseudo-science with both front feet in the public trough, always seem to get their hifalutin’ butts kicked. No wonder poseurs like Mann, Schmidt, and the rest of the climate charlatans tuck their tails between their hind legs and scurry away any time someone mentions a debate with Lord Monckton.
Even planet Earth disagrees with the stale CO2=CAGW conjecture. Who should we believe? Models, or our lyin’ eyes?
So let’s have a series of televised debates between a team of Monckton and his skeptics, and a hokey team of climate scare promoters. Mutual agreement as to venue, rules and moderators. Let’s let the whole world see the fraud being perpetrated for the sake of money and politics.
What say you, warmers? You got the huevos? Or are you all hat and no cattle?
Anyone who still believes the corrupt IPCC and their conniving, money hungry supporting scientists are not in a conspiracy to keep the climate gravy train rolling needs to read A.W. Montford’s excellent page-turner, The Hockey Stick Illusion by the author of the Bishop Hill blog [scroll down -past the Editorial Review – and check out the readers’ comments].
Using numerous documented examples of scientists, journals, and the IPCC using deceit, trickery, and breaking the rules, Montford makes an airtight case of official corruption at the highest levels. Those picking the silly nits in this Monckton thread would be knocked over backward if they read the book. But of course they won’t — their cognitive dissonance would cause them big problems.
For everyone else, read the book. It pulls everything together so the entire picture of what is going on in the climate scam is clear. You will never look at the Michael Mann clique or Pachauri’s IPCC again without total contempt.
Anne van der Bom says:
August 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
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.
But I can help you become sure about what is going on. I do know what you are looking at—a graph that makes you feel Arctic ice is not recovering quickly from 2007. But, that is a 15% concentration graph. The 30% concentration graph, the DMi graph, one that is weightier than the 15% because it shows what is happening at the heart of the Arctic, and not just what is happening (for the moment)around the circumference of the ice, shows a rapid, and strong (even surprising for how strong it is this year) growing trend in Arctic ice since 2007.
DMi graph:
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/995/icecover2010812.png
But that’s how global warming is—you can pick and chose any piece of data out of its context, like the JAXA graph you pointed to, and then make things up about that piece of data that gives the appearance the world is heading to disasters because of car exhaust.
Joel Shore I would like to see a live debate between you and Monckton.
Live debates are the test.
Would you do it?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
James Sexton says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Dang it!!! My post went the the nether world again!!! HELP!!!!!
Just copy and paste your comments to a word pad before clicking “Post Comment”. If the comment doesn’t appear appear as “Your comment is awaiting moderation” then just wait a little while. There’s comments that go to the spam filter and moderators always check there. They have their hands full keeping up, especially in a busy thread like this one. So give them some space.
I’d say if your comment doesn’t show up in 20 to 30 minutes just copy and paste it from the word pad where you saved it back to comments again. Maybe the second time through will work.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A note: people should not take it personally when a comment of theirs disappears. Moderators don’t pick on anyone here. WordPress spam filter sends some comments away for reasons even some computers programmer don’t know. With some of the negative things posted here by global warming believers (if I was a moderator I would have snipped some of them in whole) that made it through moderation because Anthony is very tolerant it’s hard to imagine any other comment would be singled out as being out of favor.
Abrahams brought a lot of admissions out from Monckton of the type, “if you look at the exact words I said, it is not actually what I seemed to say”. It was very revealing to see Monckton’s response, which completely unraveled his own points he seemed to be making in the talk. In his current video, he defends his 6 cm using IPCC numbers, and doesn’t actually argue with those at all, or with sea-level rise due to warming, only with Al Gore, which also points to some general agreement on the IPCC projection.
Jim D says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Abrahams brought a lot of admissions out from Monckton of the type, “if you look at the exact words I said, it is not actually what I seemed to say”. It was very revealing to see Monckton’s response, which completely unraveled his own points he seemed to be making in the talk.
========================================
Let’s see you in a formal live debate with him. That will be the test.
In his own words:
LORD MONCKTON, UK …
His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 –
the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had
overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise
– earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin,
made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester,
New York, USA.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/letter_to_mccain.html
(open the PDF)
villabolo1 says:
August 12, 2010 at 8:42 pm
[snip – religious insults – see policy page ~mod]
************************************************************************
[REPLY: Another moderator had snipped your previous comment. I do not know why, or who did it, but based on your reply here, I can guess why you were snipped. You refer to other commentators in your (snipped) post here in these terms:
And so on. This site has a light touch regarding moderation, allowing all reasonable points of view. But your over the top comments here, which are very common at the blogs you normally inhabit, violate site policy. WUWT readers and commentators do not need to have that kind of invective hurled at them.
Strike one, and strike two. Argue the issue, not the individual. Even one more slightly ad hominem comment from you, now or in the future, and I will snip your entire post. This is not an argument. The decision regarding you has been made, and any replies to it will be deleted without comment. ~dbs, mod.]
A 9-minute talking head video? Boring. Where’s the beef? And where is the libel suit we heard so much about in the media?
I don’t think Professor Abraham has much to worry him in this windy exposition.
Joel Shore:
Thankyou for your unintended confirmation of my point that was:
“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.”
At August 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm you respond with:
“Not only would they have…but they have:”
And you follow that with links to AGW propoganda blogs.
So, what statements of Monckton do you think were errors?
You do not say.
What would his statements have been if they were right?
You do not say.
Have you taken this opportunity to proclaim his errors?
No.
Instead, you have provided the bluster of citing AGW propoganda blogs and you have not stated their disagreement with Monckton.
And you conclude with more bluster at me that is so devoid of meaning as to be laughable: viz.
“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.”
“Falsehoods” that are so clear that you choose not to say what they are.
So, I thank you for your clear demonstration that I was right when I said:
“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.”
Richard
Smokey says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:39 pm
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.
Ok, so you do not contend that he was wrong. That’s a good step forward.
The global temperature is the central issue in this debate. We’re still discussing ‘global warming’ isn’t it? If you got your temperature predictions wrong (and that applies equally to the IPPC and Monckton) you loose the debate. Plain and simple. Nitpicking? No way.
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.
That is ad hominem. Please debate with arguments. Tell me where is their analysis wrong.
“Lord Monckton; never was and never has claimed to be a member of the Britich House of lords. He has I believe run for elective office to the House of Commons; and did not succeed”.
Then pray tell me why the House of Lords has repeatedly asked Monckton to cease giving the impression he is a member of the upper house, and to cease using portcullis letterheads? The man is obviously well informed on climate, but has lots of skeleton in cupboards otherwise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/11/christopher-monckton-house-of-lords-claims
[REPLY: Actually, he has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords on the basis that all Lords are *members* of the House of Lords, which is distinctly different from being *seated* in the House of Lords as a voting member. Think of him like the US House of Representatives has six nonvoting delegates from places like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, the District of Columbia, and other US territories, some people regard them as not really congressmen, even though they are, but can’t vote… – Mike]
Joel Shore (6:42 pm) says:
“….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…..”
That’s true.
The temperature trend from 1940, the peak of the 1905 – 1946 PDO warm phase, to 1998, the peak of the 1977 – 2008 warm phase, is about 0.06 °C / decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1998
That trend would be noted by some-one who had the pre-conceived notion that the PDO was the most significant determinant of global temperature.
The IPCC has chosen 1950 as the starting point for their confabulations, because they have the preconceived notion that human GHG emissions (mainly CO2) are the main drivers of the global temperature (the CAGW enthusiasts prefer the post- satellite era because it renders a trend of about 0.16 °C / decade, even though they invariably select one of the terrestrial records, usually GISTEMP).
There has been only one 20 year period of warming in the 60 years of alleged AGW (human GHGs being the overwhelming climate driving force), despite uninterrupted (and exponential if you like) increase in CO2 concentration.
Human CO2 emissions may be a factor in driving the post-war climate, but if so, their effect so far is hardly enough to warrant putting world economic development into reverse.
Joel Shore:
As an addendum, I think it may be pertinent to point out that it is a matter of record that you are wrong when you assert (at August 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm) that
I “want to believe” Monckton. On the occasion of a public debate in which he and I participated then he supported me. So, it could be argued that he wants to believe me, but there is no evidence to support your assertion.
And, of course, we wiped the floor with the pro-AGW side in the debate:
see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
Perhaps you would like to organise another debate with our side? I am willing and I am sure Chris Monckton and Niklas Morner would jump at the chance, too.
Richard
Mikael Pihlström: August 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Have you noticed that the House of Lords wants your Viscount to stop saying he is a member of the upper house? and that the Queens [sic] Chancellor wants him to stop plagiarizing the portcullis emblem?
Have you noticed that “wants” is not the same as “cites the law as justification”?
The House of Lords, by definition, is the entire body of the Lords Spiritual (Archbishop and Bishops of the Anglican Church) and the Lords Temporal (everyone granted or inheriting a patent of nobility from the British Sovereign). The political restructuring of 1999 barred some of those members from physically *sitting* in the House, but did nothing to re-define the House of Lords, as evidenced by a parliamentarian demand (an illegal one, btw) that everyone barred from sitting return those patents. The Queen’s Chancellor is in the same position as an American Lefty screaming “It’s unconstitutional” about an action which makes him uncomfortable, but is not, in fact, unconstitutional — both individuals are ignoring the actual law, and are fervently hoping that, if they wave their arms wildly enough, no one will realize it.
Amino Acids in Meteorites: August 12, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I’d say if your comment doesn’t show up in 20 to 30 minutes just copy and paste it from the word pad where you saved it back to comments again. Maybe the second time through will work.
Good advice, but after the Double-Post Monster bit me in the butt twice when I did that, I decided to give the mods a break and just wait patiently for my deathless prose to appear — it’s not like I have anything time-critical (or blindingly brilliant) to add to the conversation…
When is the Lord coming back to Australia, I missed out seeing him last time 🙁