UPDATE: Part 3 added
It is said that if you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk. Monckton of Brenchley certainly has done both. There’s only one problem: pirates, and I’m not talking about Flying Spaghetti Monster comparisons. Josh explains:
But as we know, Monckton doesn’t go down easily:
There might be a part three coming.
UPDATE: Here it is! That’s one hot kraken.
You can see Lord Monckton debating here:
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/eco-warriors
As Phil Jourdan says above, ad hominem attacks seem to be his opponents’ main weapons.
Walter,
Frankly, i thought it was the Plonk Constant being discussed and neither of them could spell it correctly.
@Mike
“I’d be more impressed if he turned water into wine.”
That has been known for eons or perhaps you are like the early Christians who, apparently, didn’t knew that wine came from properly watered vineyards, hence turning water into wine.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster rules the day, again. TFSM knows everything about wine, hence spaghetti.
Do you want to know how to turn water into tomato juice?
See what I did there? :p
@Walter,
Frankly, i thought it was the Plonk Constant being discussed and neither of them could spell it correctly.
—————
j ferguson,
Arrrgh, thar’s me matey. Plunk down some plunder for a pint of plonk. Avast!
Piratical Note: Me thinks Plank or Planck is bad pirate spelling by them thar edumucated types.
John
Josh,
Sheer genius!
Made I larf, that did!
Verity,
“Walk the talk” is a contraction of the older phrase, “He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.”
Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?
.
Hark!
A Part III is upon us!
.
@jim
“Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?”
Watch the videos and then decide if Hadfield is successful. If you thought I wasn’t being helpful enough, here’s a direct link to the 1st:
If only Mann and his cohorts had gone through the ‘peer review’ that Monckton currently is going through…
Are you unable to provide any specific points yourself where Monckton may fall short?
Otherwise, you _are_ acting like an advance, ‘ad’ or pitch man … (DON’T think you’re the first to ‘pitch’ potholer/Peter Hadfield on WUWT, you are only the latest of what are sure to be a series of admen doing same.)
QED
.
Like a fine Napa cabernet sauvignon, CM just keeps on improving while the supporters of alarming AGW seem to get shriller and shriller like plonk . . . . .
This is education (thanks CM) and entertaining . . . .
John
@jim I let those who do it better or best, speak for themselves. When someone here provides a link or a video, I read or watch before I post, even if I’m already familiar with the issue, unless it’s something I’ve seen before.
That’s exactly what I did with the post 2 weeks ago on “Early Winter in Switzerland”. If you’ve seen the vids ( even just ONE ) and want to argue, by all means, let’s have it out.
Any fact I would point out would be challenged for a source – rightfully so. Here I’m providing it straight from the horse’s mouth, free of charge; and his sources and methodology are also in the video or the comment area below.
And so what if someone has posted these before? That fact alone does NOT discredit them.
Hadfield is is quite possibly the MOST discredited charlatan to ever appear here on WUWT – he is very much a clueless zealot who has no idea how foolish he appears…
D Marshall says:
October 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@jim
“Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?”
Watch the videos and then decide if Hadfield is successful.
=======================================================
Groan, D, we’ve been down that road, asked and answered several times. Go back in the archives…. just search for Monckton. I couldn’t sit through much of the drivel. The first starts by attempting to refute something but, he failed. Secondly, having a “science” background is highly subjective….. but then it goes on to misstatements, taking Monckton out of context, displaying Hadfield’s own unique form of ignorance, ….. its just too much to watch in totality. Never mind, just go here…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/#comment-746523
Just start at the top, and then read the pertinent comments.
Of the 17 issues brought up by the troll, only one error could be proven. It was an error Monckton has acknowledged and explained how he came to such error on more than one occasion. Most grownups accept this and move on. It would be refreshing if all parties would conduct themselves in the manner Monckton has.
BTW, success, too, is subjective. Hadfield is successful if his aim was to cast erroneous dispersions towards Monckton. He was unsuccessful in refuting Monckton’s statements. But, considering he spent much of his time on acknowledged errors, and appeals to authority without directly refuting Monckton, this is unsurprising.
James
Josh, I can’t make it out. On the 3rd cartoon, which finger is Monckton using?
How interesting. And just what does this post (and your followups) do to help this discussion? Not a thing right? You just want to thread bomb…
I’m intrigued. Not only have you tried to interrupt a thread with a completely irrelevant topic post, but your technique, approach phrasing and wording is remarkably similar to other topic trolls who have made similar posts about the same terribly researched videos. Are you working from the same playbook? Perhaps even using easy cut and paste rebuttals with fill in the blanks? Or are you perhaps even the same person using different names trying to increase page hits at a disappointing site with poor attendance?
Anyway; you are caught! Hadfield has been discussed and thoroughly discredited here before. Since you love asking others to chase links, here is one for you to chase. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/. Oh, there are others, but you can find themselves.
TedK says:
October 4, 2011 at 3:54 pm
====================================
Yeh, I wasn’t going to chase down all the rebuts, either. But, it isn’t so much as having the same playbook, ….. well, they do, but it is simply the way they are. The extent these people go through to attack Monckton is hilarious. A 5 part video posting…….. when it would only take a simple written response to credibly refute his assertions. But, for a written post, links are expected so context can be read. 5 second sound bites……. and Peter Hadfield is a science journalist? LMAO that explains much.
What most of these people don’t understand, is that Anthony usually has open invitations for the alarmists to come here and present their case. While I can’t speak for Anthony, I’m sure if he was approached, he’d let Hadfield have his say. If not, Hadfield certainly could present on my blog. 🙂 But, written and links to his assertions provided. But, they don’t do that. They cower behind walls to prevent scrutiny. They don’t answer. They obfuscate. They divert attention. They engage in character assassination. Anything other than answer the science.
I would say, in this case, Lucia is a different sort. But, I’m not sure better. Obsessing on the minutia of Chris Monckton’s assertions isn’t productive in any manner. It loses sight of reality. For example, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/
James
Please, pitchman, no more ‘pitchman’ videos unless by an original author or source, like Dr. Bob Carter who could, and can, answer questions off-the-script:
.
You know, this is sad. 🙁 It used to be that Monckton detractors would stop at nothing to try and cast him in a bad light. So, when his posts are here, I look forward to a rancorous discussion.
While the expected distractions do occur, the defense of the distractions seem a bit……. well, nonexistent. This shows effective progress and legitimizes Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. It further goes to the credit of WUWT. But, what of me? Here I am, 1/2 full of beer and vinegar and no one to play with! That’s progress. I wonder what we’ll all do when this is done?
Looks like we are in agreement. While I was chasing down the similar language sentences you beat me to the link. Good job!
The modus operandi seems to be post an innocuous statement making the claim about allegedly well researched and damning videos that will convert the faithless. Wait, and as soon as someone rebuts/replies to their original post they then aggressively post links imbedding the video or back to the vid site. In all posts they (if it is they instead of one or two) ignore all rebuttals or complaints and pretend their video deity is without blemish.
Looks like no evening hadfield troll religious posts, maybe no-one is on the second shift?
I do not know what is up with Lucia. I used to visit the blackboard about twice a week two+ years ago. As time went by, I didn’t like wading through the “in crowd” clique comments directed at newbies and those less versed in math. No, I never read any comments by Lucia where she engaged that way; she was blunt, brutually accurate but generally unfailingly polite. Over the past year, I found less and less reason to visit the BB and the last time I went, I just never went back. Period. When I recognized Lucia’s name in the Planck post, I never got an urge to read the BB version. Nor do I care whether she is correct or not in whatever trivial assumption nitpic she is harping (unfortunate word description, but also unfortunately apt) about. I got the point about Lord Monckton’s post and I think it is a brilliant ploy; use the IPCC/team’s math and data against CAGW. I would’ve been happy to read through Lucia’s math analysis here, if she had posted it, but I will not click through to the BB to read it.
TedK says:
October 4, 2011 at 7:02 pm
James Sexton says:
October 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Looks like we are in agreement.
==============================================
Yes, yes, and sadly, yes.
Trolls, are trolls. They will forever ignore the rebuttal comments. I’ve hope for D Marshall. He(she?) seems to be a person of rationale. Albeit misplaced. Witness the lack of response. This is unusual in a post about Monckton. But, I’ve noticed it occurring recently. Watch for the trolls to come play when we’ve called it a night. Its happened the last couple of times.
As to the last “yes”. It is heartbreaking for me. It isn’t an indictment of Lucia, she’s gold. It is an indictment of what she embraces. Don’t get me wrong, mathematics is fundamental. It is truth in a manner a speech. But, it can be used and manipulated. And, to Lucia’s credit, she’s seen and exposed the blatant manipulations that commonly occur in cli-sci. But, here is a truth that she doesn’t address…….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/
While we sit and work through the maths, (Lucia and Steve McIntyre would be infinitely better than I, and any number of people) and while I hold no one responsible, except for the alarmist activists, people die. People lose their life, their property, their ability to provide for themselves. Wealth is usurped and human progress stalls. In the mean time, we quibble about the mathematical equation towards a forcing we all know makes not a damned bit of difference.
That’s my rant for the day.
James
There is a perceptable change in the contrary position of late–take it as a sign that fighting a losing cause expends a lot of energy and apparently unnerves those who were smashingly convinced 10 years ago that by now we’d be swimming along most city boulevards bordering the ocean, snow would be displayed only in museums, and vigils would be held for the last three polar bears in existence.
Now the best they can do is verbally beat up on one of the pivotal figures in this fight–the honorable Lord from Brenchly, who has my deep gratitude for his unflagging servitude. It must not be easy being the target of such abuse, but since the arrows almost always miss by a wide mark, I’m guessing their intended target is inwardly laughing at their antics. Me? I’m just disgusted at the spectacle. Do they consider themselves to be professionals? I don’t.
D Marshall says:
October 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I think the job he is doing is typical for his kind. He believes authorities are important for us, because they are to him.
So he attacks what he believe to be our authorities.
Because he cannot attack the numbers Monckton comes up with. So the attacks on Monckton as a person will go on and on and on. And on Spencer, Lindzen, Soon, and all the others who dared to talk about the numbers.
These attacks is what the video-maker believe is “Good communication”. Let him continue. Please! Because it will increase the number of sceptics.
Josh,
This is very amusing. You never cease to amaze.
I wonder if Christopher might wear the T-shirt at his next presentation.
Joe