UPDATE: Monckton offers apology, see below
Given the recent elevated rhetoric in Australia, the claims of death threats, and the media suggestions of skeptics getting tattooed and gassed, I was dismayed to see this in news.acom.au:
h/t to WUWT reader AdderW for the link to the above story.
Since I was invited to tour and speak in Australia last year at many of the same venues, I feel I should comment on this.
Alarmists in Australia are doing enough damage to themselves with over the top rhetoric. We don’t need to weaken our position on our interpretations of the data uncertainty and the science problems by committing rhetorical suicide.
Nobody has ever won an argument by invoking Godwins Law.
While Lord Monckton is free to speak his mind however he wishes, it is my opinion that this has no place in the debate, nor do the recent ugly calls from Australian columnists Richard Glover and Jill Singer.
I’m certainly not blameless in the issue of civility in the climate debate, as I’ve had my moments where I’ve rattled off an angry comment missive or a post that was misinterpreted that I have later regretted. There’s plenty of “heat of the moment” examples of that on both sides.
However, putting swastikas in planned public powerpoint presentations, and linking that by name to a person, is in my opinion, way over the top and in very bad form and totally hijacks and negates the important messages elsewhere in the presentation.
=============================================================
UPDATE: Lord Monckton responds in comments
Monckton of Brenchley says:
I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa. I have apologized to him unreservedly, and I deserve the criticisms that Anthony and many commentators have posted here. Sorry to you all. I shall try to keep my cool in future. – M of B
He says similar things in this Telegraph article:
Lord Monckton has since apologised for the remarks.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I have written to Ross Garnaut to withdraw unreservedly and to apologise humbly. What I said about his opinions was unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike.”
Noelene says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:11 pm
This article says that he has apologised.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
Christopher Monckton has apologised to the Sydney Morning Herald:
“Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as “fascist”. I apologize humbly.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
Probably best to read Monckton’s apology along with the rest of what he said:
“Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as “fascist”. I apologize humbly. Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us “climate deniers” or “denialists”, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for “high crimes against humanity?”
We await Mr Glover’s and Ms Singers responses.
Just like Baa Humbug said, his offensive has put the Warmista on the spot, if they condemn him, they also have to condemn those in their own ranks who make over the top statements about deniers, death trains, tattoos and gassing, or prove thwmselves hypocrites.
Also, it guarantees big audiences at his lecture tour and raises the profile of the fact that a well known public figure dares to oppose the holier than thou tax raisers.
Clever tactics from Chris Monckton.
Well, this has been an interesting thread.
Interesting to see that whenever Chris Monckton shows up everyone starts bouncing off the walls and turning cartwheels.
Those who disapprove of (a) the Nazi reference and (b) Monckton himself should perhaps wonder WHY this thread has seen more Troll activity than anything I can remember for many months. One of them, “Moderate Republican” even has the effrontery to cite Abraham as “proof” that Monckton has been debunked, get his facts wrong and all the rest.
Unfortunately that is [snip], pure and simple. Abraham is a 24 carat nitwit.
Yes, Monckton has (very occasionally) got something wrong and, in my experience is usually swift to say so. But, needless to say the Hyperthermalists latch on to some minor detail that may be questionable and attempt to use this as “proof” that everything else is “debunked” or “discredited”. Just as the eggregious Bob Ward did in “reviewing” Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”.
So, yes, Anthony, I would be very cautious about using the “Nazi” reference. Not because the Hyperthermalists don’t act pretty much lthat way but because it is a counter-productive cliche. (But anyone who has watched the videos of Monckton’s presentation at Copenhagen will have to confess that his “Hitler Youth” description of the Greenie thugs who broke up the meeting, was entirely apt.)
But, whilst I’m not an uncritical fan of Monckton, the fact remains that he is a knowledgable and effective debater. And the fact that he [snip] off the Greenies big-style should surely be held in his favour.
And hat-tips to Roy UK, James Sexton, Lubos Motl, DirkH, Tallbloke and many others for their sterling work here!
I also think this is calculating and deliberately provocative from Monckton.
Not so much for the big audiences for his tour, but so that bunches of left-wing nutters will come and demonstrate and try to bust up his lectures, general mayhem, fracas with the cops and so on.
That way, TV audiences get to see the ugly side of the climate movement, and Monckton gets to throw in a few Brownshirt comments (like he did in Copenhagen).
Monckton knows what he’s doing. It may be Uncomfortable, unpalatable, even unadvisable, but when he knows even his friends are beginning to get Uneasy, he knows he’s onto something.
Just look at the way he chewed out those rowdy youngsters that invaded his talk in Copenhagen. He put them right & made it clear he wasn’t going to back down at their feigned sensibilities, because his point was much more serious than they realised.
kudos to Watts for speaking against Monckton’s pejoratives which only serve to harm the debate.
Lord Monkton has it right, this isn’t about the science of climate change so elegantly argued here, this is about Science, which has had its foundations undermined by the would be political masters, and the whole edifice is about to crumble, and we will be told what is true, believe it or suffer the consequences.
The gloves must come off
This website has many quotes like these below, equally chilling:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
“So this is not science as we know it. Science has to re-invent itself as a political tool, just as it was under Hitler and Stalin. Scientists must learn ‘as quickly as possible’ what will please the political elite, and serve it up.”
Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. Hulme has been a champion and exponent of post-normal science for some years to serve his own socialist agenda, and this is what he has to say about post-normal science (some italics added):
” The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.
…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.
Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…
The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
1984 never seemed so relevant.
A lot of valid points which don’t sit comfortably together on this thread.
In terms of the scientific debate, I wholeheartedly agree with Anthony that inflmmatory rhetoric is not helpful.
In terms of the political and policy dimensions, it’s no holds barred as far as I can see.
Chris Monckton arouses such diversity of opinion here because he crosses the divide between being a political rhetorician and a student of the science.
Nobody gets it right all the time, but in terms of being an effective orator, clever strategist and having his heart in the right place on the climate debate, Monckton has my support.
By declaiming then apologising he has put the people who want to make denigrating terms for the opposition common currency in a double bind. That’s clever strategy, and we should reserve judgment on this until we see how it plays out.
If it reduces the shrillness of the rhetoric from the Warmista calling for tattoos, gassings, and loading of ‘D—–s’ onto ‘death trains’, then that will ultimately improve the atmosphere in which the debate over the science takes place.
Wait’n’see.
Some things never change.
Godwin’s law and the charge of McCarthyism, created by Socialists for protecting Socialists, a convenient component of Political Correctness. Designed to shield proto-Nazis from being compared to historical Nazis, and Neo-Communists from being compared to historical Communists.
It is amazing how even after a very long laundry list of socialist impositions on our God-given freedoms has already occured, and while we stand at the precipice of the most ambitious socialist move against freedom ever dreamed of (the attack on the Carbon cycle itself as Lubos has eloquently described), there are still bed-wetters and hand-wringers on our side that decry offensive language and characterizations of the enemy. If anyone is laughing the bed-wetters it is the ghost of Lenin and all his murderous descendants.
Being only a few generations removed from actual slavery, hard won after the deaths of hundreds of thousands, I have no intention of ever wearing chains, be they physical, psychological or something else. Am I worried about corrosive debate and Queensbury rules? Hell no!
I want to express sincere thanks to Luboš Motl, Przemyslaw Pawelczyk, Alexander Feht and Cassie King for keeping their eye on the ball in this thread. Several of them hail from actual Ground Zero in the Communist/Fascist/Socialist war on humanity, and sometimes we spoiled brat westerners in our comfortable lives in the USA and UK need to be reminded of the reality. Thanks.
Lord Monckton sometimes can’t resist poking the opposition with a sharp stick, almost in devilment. Although calling someone’s behaviour fascistic is tempting, as others have said, it’s old-fashioned terminology and so over-used as to have become meaningless. If you’re trying to maintain the moral high ground, it’s usually better not to respond in kind. Having said that, I am ambivalent about Monckton as he can skewer AGW ideologues and camp-followers beautifully.
Perhaps it’s better to describe the truth of the global warming advocates and ideologues. They are driven by misanthropic, ‘progressive’ ideology. They’ve turned a small, immature backwater science, climatology, into a highly politicised, political science, which will probably never recover. They believe in planning your and my lives, for our own good you understand. They believe in a powerful regulatory big state that they control. Their anti-industry, anti-chemical, anti- free-market and, despite the ‘hippy’ PC rhetoric, they are fundamentally anti personal freedom. They are anti almost anything modern and progressive, despite their endless over-use of the word. And, bless their post-imperial cotton socks, they’re really into eco/environmental imperialism and political power with a vengeance. Developing countries must not use modern agriculture methods, or ‘toxic chemicals’, they should stick to subsistence farming and, god-forbid, they mustn’t make electricity with fossil fuels. They must remain dependent, and poor and beholden to the beneficent West.
Difficult to summarise this toxic constellation of pessimistic control-freakery. Totalitarian is good; I like eco-imperialism, and eco-fascist is tempting and anti-democratic is their constant state http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/garnaut-report-an-assault-on-democracy/. But none of these have the right bite. We need new words that resonate and tell-it-like-it-is, but not worn out words.
As for Lord Monckton, he’s very clever, and fun and crazy, but I do wonder whether he’s a loose cannon that does our cause too much damage. The Reverend Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland was a gift to republican propaganda. They couldn’t have invented a better IRA recruiting sergeant. Does Monckton serve the same function for the eco-loon totalitarians?
Dear Anthony,
By looking at the bottom of this screen, and following this and other presentations and debates on this superb site – including the use of emoticons like star and sun and other Brand type symbols in presentations like that of Lord Monckton to make a statement – I am starting to get the meta-thought that your site is in the process of turning into a truly global site for heglian dialectic and conspiracy with all its implications, which must be a critical balancing act for the blog owner. Which is not necessarily a bad thing under the circumstances. I am just beginning to see whattsupwiththat with that viewangle.
“Being is not to feel, not to look at and not imagine,
but it is the pure thought and as such makes
it the beginning.” -Hegel
I will join this deep cultural divide with on one side Mr.Motl and Mr Pavelczyk, and on the other side those who have been living all their lives in a warm and fuzzy democratic world whare everybody is supposed to be nice.
I belong also to the former.
The swastika or the sickle&hammer are just symbols. Drawings, if you want. What matters is symbols of what.
Like Mr Pavelczyk, I do not expect that Americans will understand because they simply can’t.
But one has to say it anyway because an EARLY WARNING SYSTEM is what may save us.
Those of us who have been living in a totalitarian system, regardless whether you call it, communist or nazi, know that there is, like Mr Motl said, NO qualitative difference.
On the other hand, there are invariants that may warn rather early that something very bad is coming.
Can you understand that this is NOT about science or being nice ?
The signs are all there – intolerance, threats, lynching, reeducation, trials.
In the 30’s there were also (very few) people who warned that in Germany something very bad was coming yet … Chamberlain was telling the media how very reasonable MISTER Hitler was and how it was important to be nice to him.
C.Monckton is perfectly right. His analysis of the eco-nazis is perfectly correct and he is right to use the right symbol of this kind of movement. He could have used hammer&sickle instead, but I am afraid that people would not pay ENOUGH attention.
P.S.:
Several members of my family have been killed by Nazis (by communists too). And I can assure you that I am not the least bit shocked by the use of the right symbol , e.g: the swastika for the eco-nazi movement. I am more shocked by those here who weep crocodile tears and lament that C.Monckton does “us” a disservice by calling a spade a spade. My experience with totalitarian practices leads me rather to thank him.
Political courage was never something that prevailed much in Western democracies. They begin to timidly react only when it’s too late and their own house begins to burn too.
Dear Przemysław Pawełczyk,
thanks for your synergy with me. It’s good to see someone who went through a similar enough background to think in a similar way. (I have only been 100 meters inside Poland, either in Krkonoše or High Tatras, both haha.) By the way, Polish EU budget commissioner, Janusz Lewandowski, just exposed himself as a skeptic – global warming is highly doubtful, he said. And Poland has vetoed the “improvement” of the 20% CO2 reduction plans by 2020 to 25%. Good for you.
I think it is clear that global warming is much less “hot” a topic in post-socialist Europe than it is in Western Europe. There are almost no “thrilled” climate alarmist activists in our part of the world. And in my opinion, it’s clear that many of the people see that it’s a pretty similar hysteria and utopia that we remember from the recent past. People have had enough – for a century – of these forced unified opinions and of the isolation of everyone who has a different opinion than the politically correct one. And trying at least two versions of it – something that Poland has tried as well – may be a pretty insightful experience. It does seem to me that the traditional Western countries – including Australia – are missing some kind of immunity and are more likely to fall into a non-democratic way of thinking, and attempts to deny the similarities can’t save them. Quite on the contrary.
Lord Monckton hasn’t lived in any totalitarian system so his thinking is based on a different experience than ours but he simply ends up, for various reasons, with conclusions that sound radical to Anthony and others.
But my point is surely not to criticize Anthony. I understand that he’s successfully working on a nice public face of AGW skeptics (obviously, this conclusion won’t be shared by some of the most radical AGW alarmist bloggers) and the nice public face is inevitably judged by some standardized criteria of the contemporary Western societies – that could be labeled as politically correct criteria. No doubt, from this viewpoint, Lord Monckton’s propositions may be counterproductive.
However, there are other things that may be counterproductive – and internal criticisms in between the skeptics might belong to this group, too. They show a lack of consensus etc. Note that this kind of internal criticism doesn’t appear on the alarmist side. You won’t find Real Climate or Joe Romm articles that denounce the latest claims that skeptics must be treated by tattooing, carbon monoxide, or many other treatments. Why don’t you find such things on Real Climate?
Well, you might say that the only reason is that Anthony Watts is morally superior – so he isn’t afraid to criticize “his side”, either. That’s a part of the answer, but not the only one. The other one could be that the Real Climate people have rationally calculated that the radical alarmists who want to violently eliminate skeptics and similar things are actually doing work that is ultimately useful for the interests of the people at Real Climate and elsewhere. They do want to have someone who does the “dirty work” for them. They want bullies on their side. They enjoy them. They want to be surrounded by bodyguards. And given the problematic character of their activity, they do need such bodyguards or greenshirts, indeed. They will need many more of them if they want to impose and enforce some insanely devastating policies.
Now, our side is “idealistic”, some people think. We don’t need anyone who shows his muscles. We will win purely by the pure holiness of our cause and because we’re right. Well, I am not so sure that it does work in this way in the real world. Despite the fact that the number of skeptical and alarmed people are comparable in the world population, it seems unquestionable to me that the amount of intimidation from the alarmists’ side is vastly higher than in the opposite direction. This is a part of their explanation why the alarmists keep on influencing so many important things despite democracy that would normally have worked out to produce a more symmetric outcome.
So even though I understand that Anthony and others don’t like what they see, and they would prefer an optimum world, they’re afraid of consequences, I think that a more silent manifestation of the unity between the climate skeptics – despite their differences – could actually be more productive. Lord Monckton speaks about lots of things and different climate skeptics will agree with different percentages of these things, especially when it comes to “world government” etc. But it is surely not true that climate skeptics universally disagree with his points. I assure you that at least tens of millions of Americans totally agree with him – and it’s not just the most silly Republicans. So I would find it unfortunate if Lord Monckton were treated as a heretic by the “bulk” of climate skeptics. He is no heretic. And I’m happy that his talk in Australia is going to proceed as planned.
All the best
Luboš
Thank you Tom. I come from a similar background and I recognised what this was all about years ago. Totalitarianism is not hard to recognise once you have lived under it. I thoroughly admire Christopher Monckton and, while I at first throught that perhaps this was a mistake, simply because it would give the warmists and the media another excuse to attack him while ignoring his his substantive message, I think you are quite right that some things simply need to be said. I believe his warning about world government before Copenhagen played a large part in derailing that that conference simply hope that this, too, can be some sort of circuit breaker to help people take a good close look at what is being steadily imposed on them.
I’m from Australia too and can confirm that we are completely fed up with this incompetent and malignant government which is interested in nothing more than spending our money and squeezing us for more.
TomVonk says:
June 23, 2011 at 4:47 am
Thanks Tom – you make some very good points.
Luboš Motl says:
June 23, 2011 at 5:04 am
But my point is surely not to criticize Anthony. I understand that he’s successfully working on a nice public face of AGW skeptics (obviously, this conclusion won’t be shared by some of the most radical AGW alarmist bloggers) and the nice public face is inevitably judged by some standardized criteria of the contemporary Western societies – that could be labeled as politically correct criteria. No doubt, from this viewpoint, Lord Monckton’s propositions may be counterproductive.
However, there are other things that may be counterproductive – and internal criticisms in between the skeptics might belong to this group, too. They show a lack of consensus etc. Note that this kind of internal criticism doesn’t appear on the alarmist side. You won’t find Real Climate or Joe Romm articles that denounce the latest claims that skeptics must be treated by tattooing, carbon monoxide, or many other treatments. Why don’t you find such things on Real Climate?
I agree with most of what Luboš Motl says, but I disagree with the paragraphs quoted above. I think it is OK for internal disagreement to be aired in public. It shows the world that people on the sceptic side of the debate are capable of disagreeing agreeably, and are not so worried about their PR that they sweep such discussion under the carpet or get irrational with each other like the alarmists do. (e.g. the excommunication of scientists like Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Sr).
Long live free and open debate, as practised here and supported by Anthony, who allows people who disagree with him to have their say, provided they can speak civilly. Chris Monckton knows the rules, and doesn’t use the ‘F’ word when he submits an article here. By the same token, Anthony may come to recognise that in the rough and tumble of street level politics, political rhetoricians like Monckton need to have all tools at their disposal when out on the hustings.
I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa. I have apologized to him unreservedly, and I deserve the criticisms that Anthony and many commentators have posted here. Sorry to you all. I shall try to keep my cool in future. – M of B
There’s a difference between linking activist climate scientists and their supporters to specific war criminals and describing their behavior as ‘fascist’, which is a legitimate term if what they do actually conforms to Fascist aims and behaviours. You can read an excellent analysis of the similarities in collectivist movements, socialist and communist, in F.A. Hayeks ” Road to Serfdom”, eg Chapter 12, and Eugen Weber’s ‘Varieties of Fascism. Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century”
Anthony, you certainly have a point. On the other hand, though, the parallels with the eugenics movement early in the 20th century are (forgive the term) undeniable.
Deadman says:
June 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm
If the loons who try to order every aspect of my life would have their way, I shan’t even be allowed to call Mussolini a Fascist or Hitler a Nazi. When newspaper columnists intimate that I should be tattooed, or imprisoned or gassed because I heretically oppose their fraudulent, pseudo-scientific conjecture, then calling them merely wrong-headed is not quite strong enough. Sometimes, totalitarians, authoritarians, and all sorts of would-be-aryans have to be called by the right name—and Godwin’s law, surely, does not apply when discussing real,
murderous, send-opponents-to-concentration-camps Fascists or Nazis.
I’d liefer that Lord Monckton not display the svastika but I shall defend to a small degree of inconvenience his right to do so.==========agreed,
is everyone forgetting the chaps who wanted any dissenters to their agw fantasies placed in camps and re educated? to be outcast.
I have had the thought Fascist well tagged for Garnaut wong flannery and the rest well before lord M used it.
he spoke not ONE word that wasnt spot on when he said it.
sorry but as an Aussie whos listened to Guano(hes full of it) Monkton was probably too KIND.
and that carefully hidden clause in the copenhagen dos sure looked like NWO by the Ipcc un collective to me.
fees and fines and control of every signatory.
central rule, over riding individual countries own rights?
unelected and it would apear unremoveable just like the Eu mob.
looking at local council addedums re climate(all for drought only) for land use and rights or lack of them for owners, farmers etc, the cigiar agenda 21 millenium muck is sure being rammed into laws that NO ONE was asked to vote or agree on.
Moncktons perfectly correct and has the ba**s to say it, good on him.
I am sick of being called a [snip] with its connotations, the accountant, and thats ALL he is..sure seems to be fascist to me. they can sledge people and its ok? but give it back and they howl blue murder?
whats funnier?
the news said they wouldnt censor news.
haha ha…they have NO comment ability on most of their pro AGW items , and definitely none for this story, so support for Monckton can be supressed.
abc radio will go to town on it., while theyve been rather nasty to sceptics in word many times.
While some expected politically correct comments appear here from the U.K. and Western Europe, Australia, and the USA, I am inspired by our friends from Eastern Europe.
Perhaps we can just dispense with these classifications and use terms famously coined by Donald Rumsfeld, Old Europe and New Europe 😉
There is a recent article that is tying much of this together …
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/vote-for-whoever-you-want-bailout.html
… I wonder what citizens of the former Soviet Bloc, especially Lubos, think of that description vis-à-vis International Socialism in Europe (Bed-Wetters please note that the article is free of politically incorrect terms such as Nazi, Fascist and Communist). I am very worried for Europe, it seems to me that even Napoleon could not dream up such a plan. I also wonder why on Earth the former Soviet satellites would ever join this thing. Lubos?
Once more I want to thank the citizens here from post-Communist nations for warning us of what you see so clearly. Being relatively free for over 200 years in the States and elsewhere can actually act like narcotics on the human spirit. Such a circumstance demands nothing short of an intervention. So please keep doing it no matter how much whining you hear from the addicts.
TomVonk,
Chamberlain has been on my mind, too,throughout this thread.
We have been too polite for too long with liars and thieves.
Tallbloke, I agree with every word. I feel that Monckton’s use of the Nazi symbol was probably justified in the rough and tumble of street theatre, as you say. For those who are offended because relatives were killed by the Nazis, that’s a very big club and I’m a member a number of times over and I am NOT offended by Monckton’s use of the symbol in this case.
Sorry Anthony, I really apreciate your constant battle to keep the debate civil and civilised, but I can’t agree with you on this one.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 23, 2011 at 5:55 am
I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa.
Lord Monckton,
your tongue is planted so far in your cheek it looks like you are chewing the biggest humbug in the sweetshop.
Keep up the good work
Jill Singer expressed the following views in the [Australian] Herald Sun:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
“I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your
strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some
other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would
your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.”
Are skeptics supposed to remain silent while they are told to gas themselves with carbon monoxide,
they are equated to d—–rs of the Holocaust, they are called flat-Earthers, and they are told that they
have to have the word “D—-r” tattooed onto their fore-arms? Why is these offensive barbs somehow acceptable
but it is absolute outrage to say that some global warming alarmists (e.g. Ross Gargnaut) are acting-like
fascists?
I did not intend to go to one of Lord Monckton’s talks here in Australia but now I will go out of my way to make sure that I attend his opening talk in Newcastle, N.S.W. on July 06 th.