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.”
James Hansen was wrong in his 3 famous predictions. Wrong in every one of them.
The wide temperature range of Hansen’s predictions gave him plenty of wiggle room. Even with that big advantage, Hansen was wrong 3 out of 3 times.
NeilT says:
“That’s worth thinking about don’t you think? It makes you sound like a fanatic frantically clinging to the one piece of information which proves your belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
In science, weight of numbers as in “we have more graphs showing this” counts for nothing. The main issue is that none of these graphs can support the notion of an Arctic ice “death spiral”.
What a marvelous series of comments!
The point-by-point refutation of Lord Monckton and his presentations and publications is missing.
What more do you want? He has put it ALL in a pdf, which Anthony has linked to in the past.
How in the world do you think you refute someone’s presentation by maligning them? I do not get this.
There are certain facts which have become all too apparent in recent years, thanks to Anthony. Temperature as a measurable quantity, and the associated discipline of thermodynamics, are of recent development. Just because modern thermocouple devices are accurate to .01 degree or better does not make the measurement of temperature any easier. Temperature is itself an averaging; all molecules do not travel at the same velocity; when we quantify temperature we are seeking the peak of a distribution, not a value which pertains to all matter nearby.
Air temperature varies from moment to moment: did you ever notice that? Even a passing cloud will cause variation. How do you compute a mean or average temperature for something that varies? Do you hook up a recording device which posts every 5 minutes and integrate? That would be way expensive.
Do you measure every hour and fit a curve to the data, then integrate?
Or do you look for patterns in maxima and minima?
Thanks to Anthony, we now know the parlous state of the Stevenson screens which purport to measure the temperature, and the incredibly low level of compliance with the Government’s own standards for siting such measuring devices. The radical deletion of so many stations in recent years, and the inferring of temperature at locations where measurements were once made, calls into question the whole process. Especially as the stations which are used for performing the projections are themseles subject to the documented heat island effect. I note with horror the use of airport sites, surrounded by asphalt and the heated air from jet exhaust. Such temperatures are vital for aircraft (please believe this; pilots must know the ambient temperature for both landings and takeoffs–it is an essential part of the throttle setting computation, as well as the fuel needed).
Last but certainly not least, I note the complete lack of any data which demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere precedes temperature change. The ice core data is rather conclusive that the situation is the other way around. And then there is the question about just how long the carbon dioxide can hold on to the heat that it supposedly traps.
The unpleasant fact remains that when one decides upon one’s conclusion before conducting the experiment, one is unlikely to produce any new information.
JSmith says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?
This is silly isn’t it? You are saying Monckton is not a Lord?
Would you like to talk about the science of ‘global warming’ at some point?
James Sexton says:
August 13, 2010 at 6:25 am
Anne, even you surely noticed the wide variance in Hansen’s predictions. He covered the entire thermometer with his predictions to a point of over 1degree C anomaly in less than 20 years! That’s like going to a roulette wheel and betting on both red and black and then talking about a system when it is indeed red or black. That’s ridiculous.
Could you explain that a bit? Are you referring to the 3 scenarios? Because that’s not what scenarios are about.
Eyeballing the graph, the ‘B’ scenario that I referred does about 0.25 C/decade. That’s 1 degree in 40 years, not 20. A bit of an explanation is welcome, since he didn’t specify any error margins in that graph. I do not see what your roulette analogy applies to.
A note, you’ll notice Hansen’s GISS is altogether out of step with all the other.
Not when you look at the long term trends
JSmith: August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?
Q. What is the common term for the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature?
A. The House of Lords.
Q. Is claiming to be a member of the House of Lords solely by virtue of inherited title while not being elected to a seat in the House of Lords a false claim?
A. No. The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.
Next question, please?
JSmith says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
“Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?”
Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law. If you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t speak of it. You should ask a British citizen to clarify for you.
“”” George E. Smith says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“”” 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 ” ? “””
“”” Ric Werme says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm
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. “””
Fancy that; each of the two is not the same !
Not only can you not believe anything you hear any more, but you can’t believe anything you see or; apparently; read.
Richard M says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:15 am
Anne, please specify exactly how emissions have deviated from scenario A. Thanks.
I think I will not try to outdo Steve McIntire.
Also, anyone referencing RC is wasting my time. I no longer spend any time there since I know logical, polite comments that refutes the AGW dogma will be deleted.
Still, more than enough opposing comments make it through. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if are more comments critical of AGW on RealClimate than comments supporting AGW on WUWT. But that of course could also be due to the willingness of both sides to venture in “the dragon’s den”. However, I can offer you some consolation through the fact that Lord Monckton has been able to comment. Perhaps you should ask him how he pulled that off. 🙂
Amino Acids in Meteorites wrote : “This is silly isn’t it? You are saying Monckton is not a Lord?”
No, I am not. He has the title of ‘Lord’ (by virtue of being a Viscount) but he is not a MEMBER of the House of Lords, as explained here :
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.
Christopher Monkton’s father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.
Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father’s death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.
Since 1999 92 hereditary peers have remained as members of the House; these 92 hereditary peers were originally elected by the House in 1999, and any vacancy arising as a result of the death of one of the 92 is now filled by means of a by-election. All hereditary peers who are not members, including Lord Monckton, are entitled to stand as candidates in such by-elections. Since succeeding to his title in 2006 Lord Monckton has stood, unsuccessfully, in three by-elections.
Information Office
House of Lords”
http://home.comcast.net/~bbickmore/Climate/KingOfFantasyland.htm
Bill Tuttle says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:10 am
responding to: JSmith: August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
A. No. The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.
Next question, please?
——–
The 1999 law clearly changed the ‘membership’ status. The remaining
92 peers in remaining (Monckton is not among them) are even termed
‘temporary members’, awaiting further reforms.
The central point is that Lord Monckton clearly wants to give the
impression that he is involved in UK legislature, which is false.
Further, plagiarizing the national emblem (property of the Royal
House) is rather distasteful in any country. Not to speak of Lord
Monckton’s boasting about the Nobel prize.
Good to see the “lads” from RC posting here. To bad for them, responses don’t get “censured” , or cut here.
Just goes to show, which site is afraid of open discussion.
Bill Tuttle wrote : “The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.
Next question, please?”
I’m afraid that it DID change the composition of the House of Lords, because :
“The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. 92 hereditary peers remain in the House until full reform.”
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-legislation/
Next question : Since he claimed to be a member of the Lords AFTER his right was removed (and while his father held the title), how can you defend the indefensible ?
Anne van der Bom says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:04 am
“Could you explain that a bit? Are you referring to the 3 scenarios? Because that’s not what scenarios are about.”
Yes, as you know, Hansen came up with 3 different scenarios. (A,B, & C) The 1 degree/20 is the difference between the top (over 1.5 C) and bottom (less than 0.5 C) predictions made 20 years ago. That’s a pretty wide margin of error, wouldn’t you agree? If the temps were to land anywhere close to any of the 3 predictions, he could sit back and say, “See, I told you so!”
Further, what you called the “official analysis”, was from a study by Hansen himself (source of your graph, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf ) as you scroll up and see a couple of references to other comparisons, (Like Smokey http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455926 ) you’ll see a bit of disagreement with reality.
Anne, what you just did, was ‘prove’ to me Hansen was correct by asking Hansen if he was correct. (He said, ‘Yes, yes I am correct, and if you ever have a question about it again, just ask me again.’)
Your woodfortrees graphs are quite compelling, until you realize that the further down the time line one goes the less visual divergence one sees. Anne, let’s not be reduced to graph acrobatics to try and prove points. (I’ve got Excel 2007 on my pc and I know how to use it!!!…lol.)
I haven’t read the comments yet, but I’m much happier with the tone he’s taken here (and the medium he’s expressed it in–video) than that of his initial angry response and its hints of legal action. He should not have been offended, but delighted, by Abraham’s attack (easy for ME to say, of course), offering as it does (as he now points out) a wonderful opportunity to expose the errors and shiftiness of the catastrophists.
Christopher Monckton is an extremely intelligent and witty individual who is obviously hated by those who wish to push the false doctrine of CAGW. Monbiot of the Guardian becomes quite lost even attempting to describe Monckton’s verbal and written thrusts at his (Monckton’s) would-be tormentors. For those who attempt to impugn his character and veracity by making silly claims about his hereditary title and what that entitles him to obviously do not realise what a ‘dog’s breakfast’ the last labour government of the UK made of the legislation which controls who may sit and vote in the House of Lords.
As a non-British resident in the UK, I see Christopher Monckton as a shining light for truth and freedom, a veritable national treasure. And he always makes me see the ridiculous side of the Doomsters.
This thread does of course have a heading:-
Target: Monckton
And the game seems to be not to debate the substance of his utterances or writings; but to argue pedantically about obscure legal niceties of British Law relating to Titles of Nobility.
OK; perhaps I was lax in that I did not make a distinction between “Sitting” Members of Britain’s “House of Lords.” which apparently serves a Governmental Function not unlike; but also apparently not like the US Senate; and a broader category of persons who are members of the Peerage in some fashion; in Lord Monckton’s case, being a Hereditary Viscount.
As I pointed out “Lord” is not a Title; but like “Sir” or “Ms” is a mode of formal address. So there are NO Lords in the British House of Lords; either “sitting” or standing, or in any other posture. Those who do sit there as participating elements of the British Governmental System; presumably each have Titles of Nobility, as does Lord Monckton; which in his case is Viscount.
While such elevated concepts are alien to America, and American Citizens; we do have some semblance of formality of addressing.
President Obama; whatever one thinks of him as a person, or a man, or a leader; and in my case, I don’t know words of the English Language that represent how low I view him; is The President of The United States of America; and protocol insists that he be addressed as “Mr President.”
And if I ever met up with him, I would address him as Mr President; because whatever else he may be; he is MY President, and he will always receive the courtesy that that Office deserves.
Of course he also has been the subject of “legitimacy” debate or comment. The “birthers” I guess they are called, think he was not born in the USA. I’m not familiar with all the claims on both sides of that issue; and don’t engage in that debate; since not being a US citizen myself; it is none of my business.
To others, the debate is whether he is anti-American, and a Marxist. Is he a Christian or a Moslem ? Evidently under Moslem Law he is one of their own. In the USA that too is no-one else’s business but his.
I simply judge him by his actions. And if he sits in his chair in the Oval Office with his shoes and feet up on the desk; a very special desk that was a gift to America from the United Kingdom; and if one of his first actions upon entering that office was to have a bust of Sir Winston Churchill removed from that office; then I quickly learn where to place him; as far as his his cultural compass extends.
Of course in the Moslem community; the soles of one’s shoes have a special position of disdain; so having your picture taken with your shoes on the Oval Office desk sends a very clear message. Americans saw that message in the actions of Iraqi citizens; when the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad, as they all threw their shoes at it.
Removal of the Churchill bust evidently was a temper tantrum relating to Churchill’s actions, or the British Government actions taken when President Obama’s Mau mau terrorist ancestors went on a tribal rampage in Kenya; hacking innocent white civilians to death with machettes, in the night; back in Kenya’s colonial days. I’m old enough to remember the barbaric images of those events.
And when our President has the Prime Minister of Israel; our most dependable ally in the Middle East, enter and exit the White House through some tradesman’s doorway; rather than through the front door; that too sends a message.
But like I said he is our President; and he is MY President; and I will address him as Mr President, because that is what protocol requires; and without some attendance to proper behavior, we all become savages.
But I don’t wish to see WUWT descend into any position on a list of political blogs; I’m comfortable to see it at the top; deservedly of the list of Science Blogs.
It’s quite amusing actually to see the steady stream of erstwhile inhabitants of other so-called Science Blogs drifting over here to post their wares.
Now if your were a regular poster on “Real Climate”, why on earth would you choose to come over the WUWT to post stuff; when you already have an echo chamber over there.
Perhaps you get bored by the absence of debate over there; I’ve tried reading it; and there is no debate; just a claque of tired typists doing a Conga dance so they can all move around in a circle so they can pat each other on the back.
Well come on over; I am sure that Anthony can use the traffic; and you will actually get some action over here. While RC is doing the Conga, WUWT is more like a Cocktail party. Small (and not so small) groups of people arguing about a variety of issues of common interest; with complete freedom to leave one band and sidle on over to another, to see what they are getting so loud about.
Without dissent and debate, one might as well be standing before a mirror, and addressing one’s thoughts to that agreeable device.
But don’t come over here with expectation of not being challenged; I’m sure your views and insights will be welcome; but they will also be questioned. And we will not be in too much of a hurry to accept something you say; if your reference is simply to someone else in the Conga line.
If it is your choice to question the issues that Lord Monckton has raised; then address those issues of science or fact, or interpretation; but there will always be plenty of space over at RC to sling mud; we’re too busy over here to bother with that.
James Sexton wrote : “Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law. If you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t speak of it. You should ask a British citizen to clarify for you.”
Oh, I see. Well, as a British citizen with a long and deep interest in “British constitutional law”, I will ask myself. Thanks for the advice.
Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]
As usual, wrong. See Bill Tuttle’s explanation. With the most right-leaning politicos in the UK far to the Left of the average American, if Lord Monckton was misrepresenting anything, there would be a law passed promptly to rectify the situation. Your ad-hom monkey-piling on a hearsay meme brings nothing to the table.
Really, all this impotent oinking about status here has nothing to do with the fact that the AGW contingent has no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. None. All they have is conjecture built on always-inaccurate climate models.
Regarding RC’s rampant daily censorship of differing comments, Anne van der Bom says:
“Still, more than enough opposing comments make it through.” Got a question for you, Anne: what color is the sky on your planet? Ours is blue. And on our planet, RealClimate is a censoring machine. Believe what you want, but that is a fact.
All the Oprah fans from the censoring alarmist blogs come here because they can say pretty much what they want [with the exception of villalobo]. As with all Oprah fans, they are fixated on Royalty, eagerly drinking in every word on the subject like any plump housewife at her ironing board. But of course that has nothing to do with the only issue that matters: will an increase in CO2 cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe?
If the answer is Yes, then provide chapter and verse according to the scientific method: testable, replicable experiments and observations. Otherwise, your conjecture is WRONG.
The CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified by experimental evidence. Therefore, it is wrong. That’s why the warmist crowd speculates about British royalty. They need to calm down and take some time out for Oprah.
That reminds me of a quote. Lord Kelvin was touring America and visited a new electric power plant at Niagara Falls. The newspaperman who interviewed him and the full-of-himself plant manager about their views on electricity reported wonderingly that (paraphrasing), “The Lord might be your next-door neighbor; the plain citizen might be the Emperor of all the Russias.”
He clearly states that
“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/
Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.
I read that as him not accepting that the government had the right to do what they did.
He accepted that he could not sit.That’s as far as he went.
I don’t see the British government charging him for using the title,or the queen demanding he cease.
Joel Shore:
Thank you for the laugh. I enjoyed it. At August 13, 2010 at 6:38 am you say to me:
“Ah…The irony. In a post dedicated to complaining about supposed ad hominem attacks on Monckton, you dismiss any blog that posts discussions of his errors and falsehoods with the ad hominem label “AGW propoganda blogs” (sic) and refuse to read what they say!
P.S. – I discussed one of the errors / falsehoods in this post responding to Bill Illis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455522 I think you are capable of reading about the others from the links that I provided.”
Laugh? I almost wet myself!
I had said to you:
“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 your reply at August 13, 2010 at 6:38 am claims to rebut that by doing the same again!
Your posts do not state any error by Monckton then cited any source (blog or otherwise) in support of your statement. And you have certainly not “proclaimed” any such error. Instead, you have merely cited propoganda blogs (you are surely are not going to claim that RealClimate is not a propoganda blog when Soros funds it to be precisely that?).
The nearest to an error by Monckton that you seem able to find is – at very least – debateable as your debate with Bill Illis demonstrates.
Importantly, why should I – or anyone else – bother to read your links when you demonstrate that they say so little of merit that you are not willing (or able?) to explicitly state it? I may bother to investigate them to assess the merit of their arguments if I were given some reason so to do, but your posts here demonstrate that you think they say nothing of sufficient significance for you to think it worthy of statement.
Richard
James Sexton wrote : “Yes, as you know, Hansen came up with 3 different scenarios. (A,B, & C) The 1 degree/20 is the difference between the top (over 1.5 C) and bottom (less than 0.5 C) predictions made 20 years ago. That’s a pretty wide margin of error, wouldn’t you agree? If the temps were to land anywhere close to any of the 3 predictions, he could sit back and say, “See, I told you so!” ”
That’s not quite how those scenarios were determined – the temperatures are determined by the amount of GHGs emitted. From the link you gave, you can read the following, which explains what the scenarios actually are :
“Scenario A was described as ‘on the high side of reality,’ because it assumed rapid exponential growth of GHGs and it included no large volcanic eruptions during the next half century.
Scenario C was described as ‘a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,’ specifically GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after 2000.
Intermediate scenario B was described as ‘the most plausible.’ Scenario B has continued moderate increase in the rate of
GHG emissions and includes three large volcanic eruptions sprinkled through the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in
the 1990s.
Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large
volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.”
Not bad for a model from the mid- to late-80s, surely ?
Smokey says:
August 13, 2010 at 10:08 am
Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]
As usual, wrong. See Bill Tuttle’s explanation. With the most right-leaning politicos in the UK far to the Left of the average American, if Lord Monckton was misrepresenting anything, there would be a law passed promptly to rectify the situation. Your ad-hom monkey-piling on a hearsay meme brings nothing to the table.
Really, all this impotent oinking about status here has nothing to do with the fact that the AGW contingent has no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. None. All they have is conjecture built on always-inaccurate climate models.
——-
On Lord Monckton pretending to be part of the actual legislative
process in UK: the case is quite clear, he has given that impression.
Do you think the UK parliament and Queens representative would go
public on such an issue without a strong case?
On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing. The IPCC
models are not perfect, but if drawn correctly and not Moncktonly
distorted as yoy prefer, they do fit observations rather well. To the
extent that they don’t fit, the message is that there is a lot of work
to be done, but for instance adding biogeochemistry feedbacks will
likely not lessen the RF, on the contrary.
Watching the “debate” in the comments on Anthony’s article I think it is time that someone at WUWT made a good answer on the issue that is presented with Monckton’s graph at Realclimate and even Lucia’s blog. This article featuring now is only rhetorical, the video is also rhetorical so there is still need for a proper answer that up till now isn’t presented as far as I know. Personally I wouldn’t mind too much if the debate in this case ended with ok in this case Monckton overplayed his hand and was a bit too creative with his graph.