UPDATE: A cartoon from Josh drawn about a year ago has been added. See below.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.
Britain’s most true-believing party, the Greens, won one or two new seats, but the second most true-believing party and junior partner in the Children’s Coalition that currently governs at Westminster, the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither), were all but wiped off the map.
The European Duma, like that of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, has no real power. It cannot even bring forward a Bill, for that vital probouleutic function is the sole right of the unelected Kommissars – the official German name for the tiny, secretive clique of cuisses-de-cuir who wield all real power in the EU behind closed doors.
The Kommissars also – bizarrely – have the power to set aside votes of the elected Duma, which doesn’t even get to vote in the first place without their permission. Democratic it isn’t.
The outgoing Hauptkommissar, Manuel Barroso, is a Maoist – and, like nearly all of the Kommissars, a naïve true-believer in the hard-Left climate-extremist Party Line that is turning Europe into a bankrupt, unconsidered economic backwater.
In the Duma recently (where the Kommissars, though unelected, may sit and speak but not vote), Barroso said there was a “99% consensus” among scientists about the climate. Actually 0.5%, Manuel, baby: read Legates et al., 2013.
Because the Duma is a parliament of eunuchs, UKIP’s couple of dozen members of the European Parliament won’t be able to make very much difference to anything except their bank balances – they all become instant multi-millionaires.
However, after opposition to the EU’s militantly anti-democratic structure and to the mass immigration that has been forced upon Britain as a direct result, UKIP’s third most popular policy with the voters is its opposition to the official EU global-warming story-line.
It was I, as deputy leader of the party in 2009/10, who had the honor of introducing UKIP’s climate policy to the Press. Their reports, as usual, were sneeringly contemptuous. Now the sneers are beginning to falter.
The leadership thought long and hard before adopting the policy. I said we could not lose by adopting a policy that had the twin merits of being true and being otherwise unrepresented in British politics. Private polling confirmed this, so the policy was adopted.
For interest, here – in full – is UKIP’s climate policy as I promulgated it in 2010:
“Global warming: is it just a scam?
“The IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report made wildly-exaggerated projections of how global temperature would rise. Yet for the past 15 years [now nigh on 18 years] there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all, as a leading IPCC scientist has now admitted. For nine years there has been a rapid cooling trend. None of the IPCC’s computer models predicted that.
“The 1995 Second Assessment Report, in the scientists’ final draft, said five times there was no discernible human influence on climate. Yet one man rewrote the report, replacing all five statements with a single statement saying precisely the opposite. He later said IPCC processes permitted this single-handed rewrite, which has been the official policy ever since.
“The 2001 Third Assessment Report contained a graph contradicting the First Report by falsely abolishing the medieval warm period, which, like the Roman, Minoan, and Holocene optima, and 7500 of the past 11,400 years, and each of the four previous interglacial warm periods, and most of the past 600 million years, was warmer than today. Some 800 scientists from more than 460 institutions in 42 countries over 25 years have written peer-reviewed, learned papers providing evidence that the Middle Ages were warmer than today.
“The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report’s key conclusion that, with 90% confidence, most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is disproven by measurements. A natural decline in global cloud cover from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) caused most of that warming.
“The IPCC’s false “90% confidence” estimate was not reached by scientists: it was decided by a show of hands among political representatives who had few scientific qualifications.
“A lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report admits that, “to influence governments”, he knowingly inserted a falsehood to the effect that the Himalayas will be ice-free in 25 years.
“Many other false conclusions of the IPCC were authored not by scientists but by campaigning journalists, members of environmental propaganda groups or IPCC bureaucrats.
“The first table of figures in the IPCC’s 2007 Report did not add up. Bureaucrats had inserted it, overstating tenfold 40 years’ contributions of Greenland and Antarctic ice to sea-level rise.
“The IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 has a major warming effect is false. In the pre-Cambrian era 750 million years ago the Earth was an ice-planet, with glaciers at sea level at the Equator: yet atmospheric CO2 concentration was 300,000 ppmv – 700 times today’s 388 ppmv. If CO2 had the large warming effect the IPCC imagines, the glaciers could not have been there.
“In the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 7000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first calcite corals achieved algal symbiosis. In the Jurassic era 175 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 6000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first aragonite corals came into existence. While the oceans continue to run over rocks, they must remain pronouncedly alkaline. Ocean “acidification” is a chemical impossibility.
“Many peer-reviewed papers (e.g. Douglass et al., 2004, 2008, 2009; Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Lindzen & Choi, 2009) show that the IPCC has exaggerated the warming effect of greenhouse gases up to 7-fold. Without that exaggeration, there is no climate crisis.
“The economics of global warming
“Millions have died of starvation, or are menaced by it, because the world’s governments have unwisely trusted the UN’s climate panel (the IPCC) and the self-serving national scientific institutions that have profiteered by parroting its now-discredited findings.
“The World Bank has reported that three-quarters of the doubling of world food prices that occurred two years ago is directly attributable to the global dash for biofuels.
“Herr Ziegler, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, has said that while millions are starving the diversion of farmland from food to biofuels is “a crime against humanity”.
“Lord Stern’s discredited report on climate economics unrealistically adopted a near-zero discount rate for appraisal of “investment” in carbon-dioxide mitigation and doubled the IPCC’s already-exaggerated high-end estimate of the warming to be expected from CO2. Without these grave economic and scientific errors, no case for spending any taxpayers’ money on mitigation of CO2 emissions can be made.
“A carbon-trading scheme that sets a low price for the right to emit a ton of carbon dioxide is merely a tax and does not affect the climate, while a high price drives our jobs and industries overseas to countries which emit more CO2 than us, raising mankind’s global CO2 footprint. The chief profiteers from carbon trading are banks.
“A steelworks at Redcar is closing with the loss of 1700 jobs, because the European carbon-trading scheme has made it uneconomic. Precisely the same steelworks will be re-erected in India. Net effect on the climate: nil. Net effect on British workers’ jobs: catastrophic.
“If we were to shut down the entire global carbon economy altogether, and go back to the Stone Age but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in our caves, it would take 41 years to forestall just 1 C° of “global warming”. The cost is disproportionate.
“Even if the IPCC were right in imagining that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause as much as 3.26 ± 0.69 C° of “global warming”, adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than attempting to limit CO2 emissions.
“Global warming gurus humbled
“Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs IPCC’s climate science panel, is a railroad engineer. The Charity Commission is investigating TERI-Europe, a charity of which Pachauri and his predecessor as IPCC science chairman were trustees. The charity filed false accounts three years running, under-declaring its income by many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“Dr. “Phil” Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, on which the IPCC has relied for its global temperature record, has stepped down after a whistleblower published emails between him and other leading IPCC scientists revealing manipulation, concealment and intended destruction of scientific results.
“Dr. Jones has admitted that his Unit has lost much of the data on which the IPCC relies. The “Climategate” files show his Unit received millions in increased taxpayer funding so that it could investigate “global warming”.
“Al Gore has made hundreds of millions from “global warming”, and may become the first climate-change billionaire. In 2007 a High Court judge found nine errors in his film serious enough to require 77 pages of corrective guidance to be sent to every school in England.
“On Gore’s notion that sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet (6.1 m), the judge ruled: “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” IPCC (2007) projects sea-level rise of 1-2 ft by 2100: Mörner (2004, 2010) projects just 4 ± 4 in.
“Gore said a scientific study had found polar bears dying as they swam to find ice. In fact, Monnett & Gleason (2006) had reported just four bears killed in a bad storm. For 30 years there has been no decline in sea-ice in the Beaufort Sea, where the bears died. There are many times more polar bears today than in 1940.
“Gore said Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier had lost much of its ice because of “global warming”. In fact, the cause was desiccation of the atmosphere caused by regional cooling (Molg et al., 2003). Mean summit temperature has averaged –7 °C for 30 years and, in that time, summit temperature has never risen above –1.6 °C. The Fürtwängler glacier at the summit began receding in the 1880s, long before mankind could have had any influence over the climate. Half the glacier had gone before Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936.
“What is to be done
“Royal Commission on global warming science and economics
“UKIP would appoint a Royal Commission on global warming science and economics, under a High Court Judge, with advocates on either side of the case, to examine and cross-examine the science and economics of global warming with all the evidential rigour of a court of law.
“The remit of the Royal Commission would be to decide –
Ø “Whether and to what degree the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 or other greenhouse gases;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, the IPCC’s imagined consequences of the present rate of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be beneficial or harmful;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, mitigation of global warming by reducing carbon emissions will be cheaper and more cost-effective than adaptation as, and if, necessary;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions any emissions-trading scheme can make any appreciable difference to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and whether and to what degree, if any, any such difference would affect global surface temperature.
“Other climate-change measures
“Pending the report of the Royal Commission, UKIP would immediately –
Ø “Repeal the Climate Change Act, and close the Climate Change Department;
Ø “Halt all UK contributions to the IPCC and to the UN Framework Convention;
Ø “Halt all UK contributions to any EU climate-change policy, including carbon trading;
Ø “Freeze all grant aid for scientific research into “global warming”.
“In any event, UKIP would immediately –
Ø “Commission enough fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations to meet demand;
Ø “Cease to subsidize wind-farms, on environmental and economic grounds;
Ø “Cease to subsidize any environmental or “global-warming” pressure-groups;
Ø “Forbid public authorities to make any “global-warming”-related expenditure;
Ø “Relate Met Office funding to the accuracy of its forecasts;
Ø “Ban global warming propaganda, such as Gore’s movie, in schools;
Ø “Divert a proportion of the billions now wasted on the non-problem of global warming towards solving the world’s real environmental problems.
“UKIP has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. There must be an immediate halt to needless expenditure on the basis of a now-disproven hypothesis.
“Given our unprecedented national debt crisis, not a penny must be wasted, not a single job lost to satisfy vociferous but misguided campaigners, often led by ill-informed media celebrities, profiteering big businesses, insurance interests and banks. The correct policy approach to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”
If you know of any political party, anywhere, that has a climate policy more vigorously and healthily skeptical than UKIP, let me know in comments.
===============================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The link did not work. It is this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/uks-only-climate-skeptic-party-crushingly-wins-the-eu-election/#comment-1647632
Richard
That was wrong, too.
I think it is this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/uks-only-climate-skeptic-party-crushingly-wins-the-eu-election/#comment-1647691
Richard
Richard, the last one worked ok.
Gareth Phillips:
Thankyou.
Richard
And apologies to you Richard if I seemed to insult you, I meant to say that your bark was worse than your bite and not to get worried over minor issues.
Cheers G.
Let’s make a new word, trolloper.
I define trolloper as a person who habitually initiates taunts which consist of accusing fellow bloggers of being trolls when disagreeing with them.
John
“John Whitman says:
May 28, 2014 at 3:08 am”
I have to agree with this!
Trolloper, nice word John. I bet with 2 years it’s included in the O.E.!
Whining trolls such as Gareth Phillips too hastily come to the aid of the wounded whining troll “John A”, whom I call out as a whining troll for the following reasons:
John A, in his threadbare, lamentably undistinguished, bad-tempered and calculatedly offensive contributions to this thread, has asserted or implied as fact the following points:
1. “In the European election of 2014, UKIP made no mention of climate change or climate skepticism.” This statement was a falsehood. UKIP had in fact devoted 10% of its 750-word 2014 manifesto to the issue, as follows: “Risk Of Blackouts: The 2008 Climate Change Act costs an estimated £18bn per year – that’s more than £500 for every household in the UK. We will scrap this Act. EU renewables targets mean taxpayers’ money subsidises wind farms that require gas powered back-up when the wind doesn’t blow. The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive will shut many vital oil and coal-fired power stations in 2015. OFGEM warns that plant closures could cause blackouts.” What is more, the falsehood cannot have been anything other than deliberate, for “John A” goes on to mention that UKIP’s policies on wind farms and on coal-fired power stations are in the manifesto but deliberately omits to refer to the very first item of UKIP’s policy: “The 2008 Climate Change Act costs an estimated £18 billion per year – that’s more than £500 for every household in the UK. We will scrap this Act.”
2. Next, “John A” asserts that Nigel Farage had dismissed the 2010 manifesto as “drivel” and wonders why I say commitments made then “are somehow relevant to the reasons why people voted UKIP in 2014”. The implications that the climate policy I had promulgated was from the 2010 manifesto and that the commitments contained in the climate policy I had promulgated had been dismissed as “drivel” are both false. For one thing, if “John A” had not carefully omitted to state UKIP’s continuing intention to “scrap” the Climate Change Act 2008 that appeared in the 2014 manifesto, it would have noticed that the first item of policy in the 2010 statement I promulgated was to “repeal the Climate Change Act”. Two further items of policy from my 2010 statement were to “cease to subsidize wind farms, on environmental and economic grounds” and to “commission enough fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations to meet demand”. Plainly, all three of these items of policy that appear in the 2014 UKIP manifesto had also appeared in my 2010 statement of UKIP’s policy and are, therefore, “relevant to the reasons why people voted UKIP in 2014”, insofar as these statements of climate change policy are the third major item in the 2014 manifesto after leaving the EU and regaining control of immigration.
3. “John A” writes: “It seems to me that people voted UKIP largely as a protest vote against further EU integration (which is a common theme across the EU) and against continuing mass immigration (ditto).” Here, “John A” is implying that I had suggested that UKIP’s climate policy was the main reason why people had voted for it, when I had explicitly and correctly stated in the head posting that climate ranked after leaving the EU and controlling immigration in UKIP’s hierarchy of policies. Here is what I actually said: “However, after opposition to the EU’s militantly anti-democratic structure and to the mass immigration that has been forced upon Britain as a direct result, UKIP’s third most popular policy with the voters is its opposition to the official EU global-warming story-line.” Sure enough, reflecting this fact, on the first page of the 2014 manifesto’s list of policies, the first policy to be mentioned is leaving the EU; the second policy to be mentioned is controlling immigration; and the third policy to be mentioned is the climate policy.
4. “John A” describes the 2010 policy statement on the climate as “a policy position that even a right-wing party like UKIP does not promulgate any more”. Yet in fact, in the very short EU 2014 manifesto, three of the policy points from the 2010 policy statement are explicitly mentioned.
5. “John A” falsely asserted that my “argument hinged on the UKIP winning in 2014 based on the disowned 2010 manifesto”. This assertion is not just false but manifestly false. I had explicitly asserted that the first reason for UKIP’s victory was its opposition to Britain’s membership of the EU; that the second reason was its desire to control immigration; and the third reason was its climate policy.
6. “John A” asserted that in the head posting I had “quoted the 2010 manifesto at length”. That assertion is false and without any foundation. The head posting explicitly states that I am quoting from the climate policy that I had promulgated in 2010. Like Nigel Farage, I have never read the 2010 manifesto and could not, therefore, quote from it.
7. “John A” falsely asserted that I had “tried to conflate the 2010 and 2014 manifestoes”. I had mentioned neither. Nevertheless, it is of course true that three of the key elements in my 2010 policy statement also appeared in the 2014 manifesto.
8. “John A” falsely asserted that I had stated that the 2010 manifesto was “other than a temporary policy”. I had not mentioned the 2010 manifesto. Nevertheless, my 2010 policy statement remains, in substance, the policy of UKIP to this day, which is why three key elements from it were explicitly reproduced in the 2014 manifesto. And it is in the nature of manifestoes that they are temporary, and I had neither said nor implied anything to the contrary.
9. “John A” asserted, on no evidence, on no knowledge, ad hominem and off topic, that I had “inherited wealth”. I didn’t.
All of these statements or direct implications made by “John A” were, therefore, manifestly, transparently, deliberately false. On the basis of these wilful misrepresentations, “John A” drew the following unjustifiable and offensively-expressed conclusions:
1. That I had “made statements that were demonstrably false”. Pot calls kettle black. All my statements, as “John A” knew perfectly well from the outset, demonstrably true.
2. That “What Christopher Monckton has written is pure sophistry and I can only describe it as deceptive.” Pot calls kettle black. All of “John A”’s statements or implications itemized above were false, deceptive, and mendacious.
On any view, “John A” is guilty of trolling. I am very grateful not only to Richard Courtney but to many others for having taken it to task for its bad behavior, which Richard Courtney has rightly characterized as “harmful and disruptive”.
“John A”, having wilfully misrepresented the position over and over again after the fashion of other trolls here, ought really to apologize. However, I shall not hold my breath, for grace never waits upon gracelessness, and I shall instead content myself with ensuring that this thread is archived at the Lord Monckton Foundation, where future generations will be able to study the extraordinary lapse of intellectual rigor and common decency that had infected the Western world, of which the repellent and disfiguring contributions of “John A” to this thread are all too typical, and hence intergenerationally paradeigmatic, examples.
Finally, I make no issue of the fact that the proprietor of this site allowed “John A” to accuse me, over and over again and falsely, as will now by now be apparent, of lying (in that from the outset and repeatedly it used words such as “mendacious”, “deceptive”, and “sophistry”). For it is known that I am able to defend myself, and that I am collecting these deplorable instances of direct and malevolent falsehood on the part of “John A” and various other whining trolls as part of a major project to restore the classical modes of logical thought and morality to the education system and, eventually, to the national and international debate.
Truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion, as the early 20th-century philosopher Fr. Vincent McNabb used to say, and that is something that “John A” and various whining sub-trolls on this thread have yet to learn.
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 28, 2014 at 3:58 am”
You can’t help yourself, can you? Anthony Watts, I am surprised you still allow this on your blog.
REPLY: I don’t always see all comments posted, especially those posted while I’m sleeping and approved by other moderators – Anthony
Richard.
“I believe that you didn’t read the rest of this thread or remember your own comments, so to state that as a fact isn’t an insult” is basically what you logic comes down to. I don’t believe you. I don’t believe that you honestly thought I didn’t read the rest of the thread or remember my own comments.
Where your argument fails, Christopher, is when you dismiss a critic as a troll for what may be errors. Correct the errors you perceive if you’re so inclined, but the knee-jerk calling of gazillions of people, many of whom are often in agreement with you, trolls, undermines you.
It just looks wrong to be going on a blog with people who are frequently in agreement with you and calling them trolls because they disagree with you about something.
As Stated before, climate malarky will continue to spin up until it is recognized as a cost that loses elections. Then silence will be the new norm but actual policy change is another step.
Thank you Monckton, I am most grateful for your excellent ( if long winded) illustration of the nature of a ‘Trolloper’ I shall use it in my teaching sessions.
Philip Schaeffer:
re your post at May 28, 2014 at 5:21 am.
I did NOT say what you pretend to quote me saying.
Your falsehoods are pure trolling.
Richard
I am glad that Mr Phillips now appears to accept that it was inappropriate for the whining troll “John A” to accuse me of having been “deceptive”, “mendacious”, and “sophistical” – in short, to accuse me of lying and then to persist in his accusation in continuing, sullen defiance of the facts as I have now relentlessly unfolded them. His conduct was the misconduct of a troll, and it has no place in threads such as this.
If I am accused of lying when I have not lied, and if the person accusing me of having lied has himself lied (for instance, in having stated that UKIP’s 2014 manifesto had nothing to say about climate change when it can be proven that the troll in question had read the manifesto, which had plainly repeated as its first policy item on the subject my policy statement that the “Climate Change” Act should be repealed), then I am fully entitled to describe such a liar as a troll.
Calling a liar a troll is less impolite than calling it a liar. However, since “John A” nastily persisted in its lies, and nastily persisted in calling me a liar, I have naturally had to spell out in some detail what the evidence actually is, so that those who have not rushed, as Mr Phillips foolishly did, into taking the side of the liar without having taken the trouble to verify any of the facts will realize how foolish they have been.
So to Mr Dollis, who has adopted a carping, sniping tone throughout this thread and now bossily tells me I should not call a whining troll who has repeatedly lied while falsely accusing me of having lied a whining troll. By now it will be apparent to regular readers of these threads that I do not call people trolls because they disagree with me, but because they either persistently misrepresent what I had actually written or persistently misrepresent the truth or resort to ad-hominem attacks or – as in the case of the unspeakable “John A”, which has made a particular idiot of itself – all three.
Why is it, one wonders, other than rank bias, that sub-trolls such as Mr Phillips and Mr Dollis are willing to indulge the outright falsehoods of the likes of “John A”, and to indulge his false assertions that it was I who told lies, and to indulge his ad-hominem remark about my supposed inheritance (of which “John A” has no knowledge, wherefore a becoming silence would have been appropriate), while sniping and carping at me for demonstrating that “John A’s” lies were exactly that?
For once, let these knuckle-dragging sub-trolls do a little homework and look at UKIP’s 2014 manifesto. There they will find the reference to “climate change” that “John A” said was not there. Yet if they read his earlier postings, they will see that he mentioned the UKIP policies on windmills and coal-fired power stations that occur in the very same paragraph, in which the very first item was the reference to the “climate change” Act. So “John A” had known perfectly well that the 2014 manifesto mentioned “climate change”. It was not an “error” on the part of “John A”: it was a wilful misrepresentation, part of a series of related and carefully-contrived wilful misrepresentations designed to cast me in an unfavorable light because “John A” does not like UKIP’s commitment to restoring democracy in Britain. On that, “John A” is of course entitled to its view. But it cannot expect to get away with lying and persisting in its lies, and hope that I shall not call it out as the liar that it is.
Finally, in calling “John A” a liar not only am I stating the well-demonstrated and properly-evidenced truth but also not directing that amply-justified epithet at any named person. For “John A” has chosen furtively to call me libelous names from behind a pseudonym. I can, therefore, call it any names I like, without reproof, for it has been cowardly enough not to identify itself, except to the extent of admitting, rather late in the day, that it once administered a climate-skeptical blog. The only “John A” of which I was previously aware was a band.
If trolls post here under pseudonyms, and continue to exercise a right that they should really be denied, of making and persisting gravely false allegations against named individuals, they must expect to be treated with the ridicule and contempt they deserve. I am not alone in having become weary of the utter falsehoods that so many in the climate debate feel free to perpetrate, and I shall continue to do what I have always done: to point out the falsehoods as bluntly as may be necessary until they cease.
I’m a climate skeptic and a euro-skeptic, from a member state of the EU and the eurozone. I followed the EU parliamentary elections closely, and Europe wide I must say that climate was nearly a non-issue. Economy, national sovereignty, immigration, EU bureaucracy, voter apathy and Ukraine dominated the debates.
I don’t understand Chris of Pomposity at all. There seems to be very little substance behind his argument, and when challenged on it, calls everyone who challenges his faulty view a troll. As mostly a silent and non-debating follower of this fine blog, I don’t see why he should be given such a prominent position here. His threads mostly repeat themselves on the temperature record, which usually seems a side point, the real issue being self-promotion and self-indulgence. For a neutral reader, the undecided, lukewarmers, doubters, I gather, he must seem like a caricature of the “climate denialist” and his arrogance is off putting. Come down a peg or two, Chris Monckton, be a normal, humble person. You act like a cartoon character of the Victorian snob. Climate skepticism is a good cause, but I doubt very much that your approach or style is fruitful at winning over new supporters for it.
“Buddenbrook” is entitled to its opinion, but if I were to call it a liar it would understandably take offense. I was called a liar and dealt with it. Why is “Buddenbrook” so selectively silent on the unfounded allegations of mendacity by “John A” to which I have chosen to respond?
My monthly updates of the global temperature non-trend seem to have attracted much interest and have made some contribution to the growing public awareness that the modelers’ predictions are in this major respect exaggerations. And I write on many other climate-related matters. I imagine that I am given space here because what I say is of some interest to those who administer this site and to their readers. My pieces regularly attract a rather higher than average number of comments, and – though the pompously puritanical “Buddenbrook” may be surprised at this – quite a few readers (and one or two of the moderators) enjoy my vigorous and sometimes detailed responses to various trolls, name-callers and other time-wasters.
And if “Buddenbrook” thinks my “view” is “faulty”, let him say why. Otherwise he is indulging in mere yah-boo, and doing so from behind what appears to be a pseudonym. If so, that is cowardly.
Avast me mateys, thare be
sea monstersTrollopers*** here. Arrgh. Aye, two of em ‘orrible things thare is amongst yee.*** a Trollop is defined to mean a person who habitually initiates taunts which consist of accusing fellow bloggers of being trolls when disagreeing with them.
John
[No, no. A trollop is a female troll. Which may the same thing as what you defined. 8<) .mod]
John Whitman:
re your post at May 28, 2014 at 7:50 am.
In can invent definitions for words, too. Anybody can. But I choose to use definitions which pertain to the history of the defined word.
For example, a johnwhitman is defined to mean a person who proclaims trolling as an art-form and who habitually trolls.
So, having addressed your side-track, I request a return to the subject of this thread which the troll infestation has successfully diverted by .
Richard
“I did NOT say what you pretend to quote me saying.
Your falsehoods are pure trolling.
Richard”
Looks exactly like what you are saying from where I’m standing.
“On the contrary, I was objecting to your attempts to stifle information from and about a “wrong team”.”
What on earth did I do to stifle information from and about anyone?
“I am glad that Mr Phillips now appears to accept that it was inappropriate for the whining troll “John A” to accuse me of having been “deceptive”, “mendacious”, and “sophistical”
Apologies Monckton, I fear you have confused me with another person, with all due respect I said no such thing. There does seem to be a fair amount of criticism of your approach which really can’t all be classed as Trolling, so when in a hole etc. Apparently UKIP received less than 10% of the UK vote, but that is the nature of democracy. UKIPs success was remarkable, but it was apathy that won a landslide victory. Lets hope whoever wins the UK Parliamentary election next year has sufficient votes to claim a governing mandate.
He did say why. (Obviously.) He said:
That’s his impression (which is roughly my impression too from a distance). Maybe he’s right; maybe he’s wrong. However, it is absurd to say he didn’t say why.
– – – – – – – –
.mod,
Cute. But isn’t a female troll is more likely to be called a trollete or troll babe, n’est ce pas?
And I should clarify that trolloper is not associated in my defined way with the dictionary defined trollop (slutty behaving lady). Although completely unrelated, I find the latter is of more noble stature than the former. : )
John