Monckton and Monty – dead parrot parody of IPCC

As a further reply to the furtively pseudonymous “warrenlb”, who has no more sense of humor than most totalitarians, here is a further extract from Mr O’Donoghue’s Opinion on my undoubted membership of the House of Lords, which accords with my own admittedly inexpert understanding, and does not accord with the Clerk of the Parliaments’ self-evidently inexpert understanding, which does not have the support of the House itself. The Clerk’s letter was posted at the instigation of Socialist climate extremists in Australia because they knew they were about to get creamed in a live head-to-head debate with me on prime-time TV. Their tactic spectacularly failed. So to Mr. O’Donoghue. Here is the concluding paragraph of his Opinion, and I am, in a way, almost grateful to the hapless paid troll who has given me the opportunity to repeat it:
“Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”
So the Clerk, for political reasons, spoke out of turn and got it hopelessly wrong. Mr O’Donoghue suggested I should sue the Clerk for libel (he was genuinely furious at the Clerk’s stepping out of line). but it’s much more fun to expose the Clerk’s ignorance, and his shoddy willingness to support his Socialist mates even though his job requires strict political neutrality, every time a troll is foolish enough to give me the opportunity. The bullying to which I have been subjected over this issue has earned me enormous international support from those who had hitherto not realized the desperate lengths to which the canting profiteers of doom were prepared to go to use diversionary tactics rather than to talk about the science that now points so unerringly against them.

John McClure: I think you meant “two” not “to”. But you are too favorable to prior terms. There are enough jokes and jokers in the last fifty years to keep us laughing for eternity. That is to say, about the same length of time it will take to pay off the debt they have incurred for our “benefit”.

I agree that a YouTube version would be a winner.
Here’s a WUWT thread with even more detail on MoB’s HoL membership:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/

The sneakily pseudonymous “warrenlb” is off topic, and is not exactly winning friends or influencing people here. Here is another extract from the Opinion of Hugh O’Donoghue, Barrister-at-Law:
“In common usage, the term “House of Lords” is synonymous with membership of the Peerage (although it might be also argued that they are not technically coextensive). There is, on the other hand, absolutely no doubt in my mind that, although the present Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has never been given an opportunity to swear his Oath and participate in Parliament, he nevertheless remains a member of the House of Lords and of the Peerage by virtue of the Letters Patent that created his Viscountcy. He is, therefore, entitled to all of the privileges of Peerage except to sit and vote in the House of Lords. On that basis alone, he may legitimately state that he is a member of the House of Lords.
Furthermore, the various functions and roles of the Peers sitting collectively are discharged traditionally as a group under the rubric “House of Lords”. While the political function of the excluded Hereditary Peers has been abrogated (whether lawfully or otherwise), the other roles of the excluded Hereditary Peers remain intact as they have over the centuries.
The strongest of many arguments in Lord Monckton’s favour is that since the Mayhew case it is clear that the sense intended by Parliament in removing “membership of the House of Lords” was confined to the objective of disqualifying all Hereditary Peers from sitting and voting in the House. The phrase “membership of the House of Lords” in section 1 was, as identified by Lord Slynn, mere symbolism to denote a functional restriction as opposed an exhaustive definition of the term latae sententiae.”
As to my logo, Garter King of Arms has confirmed to an enquirer a) that any combination of heraldic symbols not registered to anybody else may be adopted as a logo or device; and b) that the combination of the generic heraldic device of the portcullis and the specific heraldic device of the vicecomital coronet in my logo is not registered to the Houses of Parliament or to anyone else. I am, therefore, entirely free to use it, and I continue to do so without objection from anyone except paid trolls of the hard-Left climate-extremist tendency, ever more desperate to divert attention from the abject failure of the pseudo-science to which they had so profitably but misguidedly adhered.
Global temperature continues to change in a manner markedly less exciting than the “settled science” had foolishly predicted. No amount of hooting and hollering over whether I am a member of the House of Lords will alter that. Antarctic sea-ice extent is at a record high; there is no trend in droughts, none in floods, none in hurricanes, none in tornadoes; sea level is barely rising; every single one of the predictions of doom made by the profiteering academic clique on the hard Left that has been peddling this childish scare story has proven to be a failure. It was not I who created that failure, though I was one of those who pointed it out. Shouting at me about my peerage will make no difference whatsoever to the science, but it will help to confirm in the minds of discriminating and hitherto uncommitted observers that if arguing about the arcana of peerage law is the best that the paid trolls can come up with then the game is indeed up and the scare is indeed over.

More on the CLOUD experiment & cosmic rays:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/nir-shaviv-cloud-is-clearing.html
Comments include discussion of & links to studies on Forbush events.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/01/nir-shaviv-on-the-cloud-experiment-worth-a-read/
Shaviv’s talk at EIKE has recently been posted on this blog, but here it is again. He posts a graph on Forbush events:

May 25, 2014 at 4:43 pm | warrenlb says
—-
To take the dead parrot analogy a little further … the little twerp is wired to his perch of hate.