By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The ever-wonderful Joanne Nova has been in touch from Australia. She has brilliantly redesigned the front page of Nature. It was so well done that when I saw it my first instinct was that it was genuine, and I went straight on to the web to find more details of Nature’s story on “Blacklisted scientists you must ignore”.
Satirizing Nature’s Blacklist from Jo Nova
Meanwhile, one of the many eminent scientists on the widely-circulated Nature Communications hate-list has sent me a copy of his own complaint to that “learned” journal. He writes:
“On 13 August 2019, three UC Merced faculty, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, published a paper in Nature Communications. The paper refers to ‘climate contrarians’, a pejorative term. Your university put out a press release, referring to ‘deniers’, a term referencing those who question the historical validity of the Holocaust.
“I do not doubt that the Holocaust happened. I was one of the first to show that climate change is real and human-made. I have contributed to several reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and I have advised climate policy formation and design in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States of America.
“I was therefore surprised that your colleagues labelled me a ‘contrarian’ and a ‘denier’.
“The authors, employees of UC Merced, (a) collected data about me without my permission; and (b) disseminated said data without anonymization.
“I also believe that (c) the use of pejorative terms violated your code of ethics.
“I hereby raise a complaint about (a), (b) and (c).”
In a further email, the complainant points out, most helpfully, that the collection of data about anyone without permission and the dissemination of that data without anonymization are offences under the Data Protection Act 2018. I shall certainly make good use of that information, for Nature Communications is published in London, though the publisher is headquartered in Berlin.
The complainant explains that the 2018 Act implements the Directive of our unelected SU masters on General Data Protection and that, therefore, German has an Act similar to the British legislation.
We now have a lawyer advising us, so that, in the event that Nature Communications and the “University” of California at Merced fail to reply substantively or at all to our letters of complaint, the police and other authorities will be informed and the suits for fraud, libel, breach of right of privacy and breach of data protection law will be lodged.
On rereading the outrageously libellous press release touting the purported “study” and issued by the “University”, I have written to the author of the press release, with a copy to the Chancellor ad interim, as follows:
Madame,
Notice of intended prosecution: Fraud and libel by you
My attention has been drawn to a fraudulent, libellous press release written and widely circulated by you, and posted by you under your name on the website of the “University” of California at Merced. The press release was circulated by you to the following among others: The Straits Times, Yahoo.com, French newswire, Newsweek, Hurriyet (Turkey), The World News Net, msn.com, Spacedaily.com, japantoday.com, flipboardcom, the Brussels Times, Malaysia News, Today (Lithuania), thenews.com, Egyptindependent.com, desmog.co.uk, The Daily Star (Liberia), The Business Times, Agence France Presse, Foodevolution.com, phys.org, 24matins.uk, jen.jiji.com, The Youth Times, goldrushcam.com, Cosmos Magazine, Yahoo News Australia, etc., etc., etc.
In the offending press release, you have described me and many other climate researchers who disagree with you on the question of global warming, and whose names were listed in the material linked to the press release, as “climate change deniers”. This term, with its deliberate and malicious overtone of pejorative comparison with Holocaust denial, is repeated at least five times in your press release – an indication of the extent and depth of your malice.
You also describe us as people who “dismiss climate change”, have a “legitimacy they haven’t earned” and “lack scientific training”, as “a relative handful of non-experts”, as “not scientists”, as having “very thin credentials”, as “not in the same league with top scientists, as “not even in the league of the average career climate scientist”, as “spreading misinformation” or “amplified misinformation” (the latter term being prominent and in color in a large, emboldened subheading, and then repeated later in the text), as “not accepting the results of climate science”, as having “biased judgments … even when faced with documented facts”, as prone to “political cues, ideological biases, cultural worldviews and even personal weather experiences”, as saying “climate change doesn’t exist”, as advancing “not a credible argument or a means of balancing”, as guilty of “false balance” and “disinformation”, as “climate contrarians”, as guilty of “acute misrepresentation of information aimed at misleading the public for political gain” and of “widespread disinformation efforts”, as implicitly involved in “a well-financed propaganda campaign on behalf of conservative fossil fuel interests”, as “non-experts presiding over scientific discourse”, and as “counterpoints to legitimate, experienced and disciplined climate scientists” who are “given a measure of credibility they do not deserve”.
By this letter I give notice that, subject to anything you may say within the next seven days, I propose to report you for fraud to the prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom, where your press release has been widely circulated, in the United States, where you perpetrated your fraud, and internationally to Interpol. I wrote yesterday to the Chancellor of your institution, drawing his attention to the lies and misrepresentations in your press release and inviting him to withdraw it. I now make the same request to you, for we hold you personally no less responsible than the Chancellor of your “university” for the words you have written.
You should be aware that, following a letter from me yesterday to Nature Communications, the “learned” journal in which the “peer-reviewed” “research” “study” that is the subject of your press release was published, that journal has removed all reference to the offending purported “study” from its homepage and has added to the page containing the purported “study” a paragraph indicating that it is investigating “a number of criticisms related to this work”, and has removed altogether the list of names of the alleged “deniers”, including my name. A facsimile of that paragraph, from the journal’s website, is below:
I should be grateful if you would forthwith arrange for the prominent link from the “university’s” homepage to the offending press release to be removed, and for the press release either to be removed or amended to take not of the fact that the editors of the journal in which the offending purported “study” was published are investigating our criticisms of it.
I should also be grateful if, within seven days, you would publish on the website of your “university” an apology, retraction and undertaking not to repeat the libels, giving it prominence no less than that which you gave to the offending press release, and circulating it no less widely. Otherwise, you will be reported as an accomplice to this elaborate conspiracy to defraud, as mentioned above, and I may without further notice issue proceedings for libel.
A copy of this letter goes to the chancellor ad interim, who has not yet replied to my letter to him. I should warn you – and him – that the courts regard failure to reply to a letter before action such as this as reprehensible.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Sue them into oblivion.
I’d love to see them sued but I don’t see the basis of the fraud allegation. The whole alarmist activist endevour , presenting politics as science is a fraud but that seems far too broad argue in court. I would have thought that libel and reputation loss would be easier to prove.
“and internationally to Interpol. ” Now that little rider probably has anyone on the receiving end laughing out loud. Interpol has very little resources and is not going to get involved in anything less that a major explosion or drug smuggling case. Calling someone rude names in a science journal is going straight into the bottom draw.
That makes the whole thing sound like “and I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow you house down”.
I agree with your final sentence although I do think he may have a case for libel. He has a stronger case on data protection grounds.
Personally I find that in general Viscount Monckton’s style is too verbose and he overeggs his case. In this particular piece his over use of quotation marks is in questionable taste, with similar implications as the use of the word denier in the paper – apart from being stylistically poor. I am slightly surprised that after more than 40 years in journalism he hasn’t learnt the art of concise writing.
Don’t whine about style. Stick to the main point: this is a blatant attempt by climate Communists to silence all academic freedom of research, enquiry, debate, publication and speech. In UK law, when writing a letter before claim, it is necessary to provide tedious detail about why the offending material is objected to. If you don’t want to read it, you don’t have to.
Sorry, Christopher, but Chappell is right. You get carried away with your love of words and please accept that as friendly criticism from someone who suffers the exact same ailment!
Brevity, remember, is the soul of wit and you and I both have trouble with it. There is always one more orotund phrase that is worth including … except that it isn’t!
Not to mention that your use of quotations was entirely accurate and necessary, for calling this “study” what it really is – a steaming pile of excrement – would be inadvisable in official letters.
I can say one thing with relative certainty, I’ll bet you drive spell-checkers mad.
Newminster and Chappell:
That’s your main gripe is it? Sheer tendentious griping where the real issue is you are just trying to ride Monckton’s coattails.
Brevity may be one soul of wit, with emphasis on ‘may’.
Brevity is a curse when trying establish solid legal rights and position. Especially when defending oneself against public funded aggressors, who do not shrink from destroying careers and reputations through abuse of money and lies.
Newminster
Chappell is incorrect. Each term enclosed it quotation marks indicates as a group, the baseline from which a full complaint will be presented to the court.
For example a “study” has a textbook definition when it comes to social science and has norms to be met and standard s of review to be applied – standards obviously not met. The attribution to 386 people of that list of pejoratives is outlandish. Beyond belief, in fact. It is the sort of gutter science journalism one expects, from experience, to see in the Guardian, or the NY Times, not a peer reviewed paper in Nature Communications.
The editor(s) should immediately withdraw the paper and blame the reviewers, thereafter banning them from serving as such ever again. Heads must roll for this.
No one successfully getting through first year sociology would unmask their study subjects while simultaneously asserting motivation, bad faith and incompetence to them all. By anymore, it was not “a study”.
With damages of least $1m each, this is going to cost them $386m plus costs.
The term “post haste” was invented for circumstances such as these.
Monckton of Brenchley
Stick it to them Christopher…Do not change anything.
It is good for the soul, and the morale of the Sceptical Troops to have Monckton of Brenchley giving one of his fine lessons in manner to these pompous, arrogant twits who are unable to counter his unique style…or argument.
They have free reign to produce, and publish, climate related tripe and personal invective. Then Monckton comes along and gives them a sharp tug upon their leash and they whimper away…tail between legs…searching for that modern day refuge of the cowardly ..A Safe Space.
And find it in The Heart of the modern academia and associated science publications. They will be back of course…invigorated by acolytes, by tenure, public grants and their daily fads but…Monckton will be waiting for another opening…and then the pounce…
Monckton of Brenchley is good for our Spirits.
I particularly enjoyed the use of quotes around “university”.
– an old “Anteater”
Don’t whine about style. Whine over content and consistency.
Well, Monckton, I’m afraid your fast moving story has come to a standstill. In your post “Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel.” where you promised international investigations, big and bold libel suits and lengthy penalties, it has come down to
“The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation which was incorporated into UK law by the Data Protection Act 2018.”
That you are totally ignorant of and that you first became aware of here at WUWT a couple of days ago, but of course, you have already become a specialist.
Do you think Your threats to the authors of the Nature article “Discrepancy in scientific authority and media Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians” will cause the authors of this article or editors of Nature to lie awake all night in fear of Monckton?
Do you think the United States will expel the American authors of the article, including depriving them the rights of being a US citizen, to be tried before a German court for a crime that has occurred only in your confused head.
Do you have any qualms of conscience for the crap you have been spreading on WUWT the last three or four days?
Verbose? I think he just enjoys the English language and uses it masterfully.
He does go into a lot detail but without the details then his posts would just be his opinions with nothing to back them up.
Gunga Din, exactly so! I think Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s post above is exactly fitting (even if it includes a “notice to Interpol”, to show how seriously he considers this offense).
As to those who advise brevity and the avoidance of extensive quotation marks: have you ever read a submission of a legal complaint to a court of law written by a barrister (lawyer)? Trust me, Monckton’s letter to the author of the press release, as detailed in the above article, is a very concise summary of what that document will be if this matter proceeds that far.
To all of you who are criticizing the form of the content of this letter, going so far as to call it laughable, and all the rest of what each of you said: I would bet any of you dollars to donuts that the lawyers of the people receiving this letter are not laughing, nor are the skipping through parts because they do not care for the prose.
It does not seem in any way wordy, improper, or humorous.
To me it sounds emphatic and crisply to the point.
I am hoping for 385 more in a similar vein to follow it up.
I am hoping that a whole big bunch of those 385 are not nearly as conciliatory and polite.
I saw not a single polite, or conciliatory, or reasonable word in the text of the so-called “study”, in which the authors repeated again and again every ad hominem and insulting pejorative they could think of, and then threw in the kitchen sink for good measure.
The authors and anyone who had anything to do with creating and distributing this work, which might be described as an anti-science and anti-free speech manifesto, are not nice or good or kind people.
If they were to ever have their way, it would be perhaps the darkest day in the history of our civilization, and that is no exaggeration.
To even let them get away with this sort of outrageous and inexcusable behavior, with only having to say, in effect, “Nevermind”, and with no real consequence to themselves, would set a very bad precedent, which comes on top of a long series of such.
Enough is enough of the evil self-dealing from this lot.
In fact, enough is already far too much.
In response to the relentlessly negative Greg, the attempt by climate Communists at Nature Communications to silence all academic debate is part of a much wider fraud which has already been drawn to the attention of national and international investigating and prosecuting authorities and is increasingly attracting their interest. On its own, it would probably lead to a conviction in a UK court: but, in the context of the wider fraud, it shows the increasing desperation of the climate Communists to silence debate as they realize they have lost the scientific argument.
Not just academic debate. They clearly imply that governments need to regulate content on the internet so that no one anywhere can disagree with their nonsense.
“Communist,” brilliant. Nothing pejorative about that.
You are correct, there is noting pejorative about the term “Communist”, as it is an accepted way to describe a specific political/governing system. You are free to quibble about the accuracy of calling these people communists, however that is something else entirely.
Communism and Communist certainly not
But Commie or Pinko perhaps.
As is Climate Denier and Science Denier
They’re also kind of smug, Monckton of Brenchley. I don’t know the corresponding Scots word for smug, but in Cornish, it’s ‘omgerensedhek’. ‘Self-important’ is another way to put it. Why on earth should they answer to your needs, ever?
Hoity-toity, noses in the air – eventually, they’ll trip over their own feet or a bump in the road, and splatter nicely. I’d guess they don’t realize you can’t keep a good man down, especially when you’re mostly full of hot air and bacon drippings.
“Numpty naif” is the phrase you are looking for 🙂
>>>>……..to silence all academic debate is part of a much wider fraud which has already been drawn to the attention of national and international investigating and prosecuting authorities and is increasingly attracting their interest.
Can I ask for some facts, which national and international investigating and prosecuting authorities are conducting this investigation?
What makes you think you are entitled to confidential legal strategies between legal counsel and client?
“…national and international investigating and prosecuting authorities..” can under no circumstances be bodies subject to the rules of confidentiality between legal counsel and client.
Do you imply that Mr. Monckton already has established such “national and international investigating and prosecuting authorities?” Such bodies are established by national law and international conventions, and I see no reason why privat individuals – as Mr. Monckton obviously is – hold confidential information he cannot share with the public.
I would like this information, if Mr. Moncton’s information is correct, it would be sensational.
If you go back through his posts over time you’ll see mentions of turning material over to authorities to investigate. So to that, yes the authorities have information he’s provided to them. If there is an active investigation, I doubt we’ll see anything at the public level. If there isn’t an active investigation but they are holding onto the material waiting for enough evidence to go on we wouldn’t know anything. If they’ve thrown everything turned into them in the trash as it comes in, we wouldn’t know anything. Basically we wont know if there’s an investigation or not until an investigating body makes a public announcement.
@Rune V.
To follow up on Darrin’s comments again you are not entitled to any of it as I stated earlier.
Your motives here seem less than genuine nor benevolent and transparent to me at least.
And while my motives are genuine, I am not entitled to the information either as I am not a party to the legal action.
No one is obligated to tell you anything.
Well, one thing we can be pretty sure about. There is no ongoing investigation under the auspices of an “international investigating and prosecuting authorities.” Tribunals that have supranational authority are established to investigate and punish serious crimes in areas without functioning authorities that are either unwilling or unable to carry out necessary legal processes such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Climate research is largely carried out by people residing in well-functioning nations with a national criminal justice system. Do you think the United States will give up sovereignty over a US citizen to be judged by an international court? There is no need for such a international authority, and it does not exist, the claim is pure nonsense.
v’
“and internationally to Interpol. ” Now that little rider probably has anyone on the receiving end laughing out loud.
That’s right – and therefore can’t reminded often enough to Interpol and the inefficient organizations like EU, UN, AU et.al.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“The complainant explains that the 2018 Act implements the Directive of our unelected SU masters on General Data Protection and that, therefore, Germany ? has an Act similar to the British legislation.”
p.s. Love all your videos…..
Go get’em, Sir Moncton. Give’em hell! It does one good to see someone stand up for what is right, true, authentic and real.
His name is Monckton ( see the first and last lines of the article ) and he is not a “Sir”. The least you can do is get someone’s name right. Glad to see you stand up for what is right, true, authentic and real.
His name is “Monckton of Brenchley!
“The least you can do is get someone’s name right. – Greg of Nothing”
Clearly, he is not a “Sir” but a “Lord” – of Brenchley – no less!
As an hereditary peer, I recognise him as a “Lord” in the original and
“right, true, authentic and real” sense!
Chris’ name is Christopher Walter Monckton. His title is Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, of which he is the third holder. He can be addressed as Lord Monckton of Brenchley, not as Sir Christopher, as would be a baronet or knight.
Not in the U.S. No lords, thanks.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.
See also Article I, Section 10 and Article IV, Section 4.
No federal or state titles of nobility, and a republican form of government.
Pat Frank August 18, 2019 at 12:13 pm
Sorry Pat One of the United States Revolutionary war generals was AHEM. Lord Stirling
Lord Monckton of Brenchley, I hope you don’t mind the competition.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/william-alexander-lord-stirling
michael
Pat Frank, John Tillman,
How do you refer to the Queen of England? “Your Highness,” or just “Liz”?
Liz works in both the U.S. and the Royal nursery.
The good and eloquent gentleman in question may well be a peerage Lord, but the utter respect and admiration with which I regard him was not inherited, it was earned, so the ‘sir’ is not a diminishment but in addition to whatever his daddy may have bequeathed. A keen mind, ruthless pursuit of the truth, and most of all, a good heart, will earn that respect even if found dressed in the shabbiest of clothes. As to misspelling the honourable gentleman’s name, I am truly sorry, and abase myself in regret. Mea culpa.
Hear, hear … though he is no shabby dresser either and indeed founded a very successful enterprise in gentlemens’ atire.
Alarmists and Warmistas do not come out of a clash with Viscount Monckton of Brenchley unscathed. This is indeed a ‘fast moving story’.
Indeed not nicholas! He won the debate on climate change at Oxford University’s (Oxford Union) -world renowned annual debate society founded in 1823. He is a prime reason the consensus decided never to debate with sceptics. A few other notable debates were lost by dangerous climate warming proponents (none were won – an ignominious perfect record). Hence the fear of debating scientifically literate sceptics. Here is Gavin Schmidt’ fearful reaction to a proposed debate with Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=2c9_1393406954
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“I should be grateful if you would forthwith arrange for the prominent link from the “university’s” homepage to the offending press release to be removed, and for the press release either to be removed or amended to take note of the fact that the editors……..”
Yes, correcting the typographical error “…take not of the fact that…” in the original.
Since the link is to the original article, once it had been amended by the University, the web address will likely change and render the link here null
I wish you good luck!
Why the quote marks around “university”? It implies that you disagree with the term. The University of California is a duly constituted university.
Cheap sniping doesn’t make your complaint more credible and it doesn’t make you look better.
Don’t whine about inconsequentialities. If a “university” doesn’t behave like a university, then it’s a “university”.
Don’t let the nitpickers get you. I like a man who gets to the essence whereas anyone can be a nitpicker. Lord Monckton’s legal petitionings are without compare.
Mr. Monckton:
1) Do you honestly believe that you and your methods are effective in combating the spread of CAGW alarmism?
2) Can you explain how labeling the entirety of the other side of the debate “Climate Communists” helps the cause of skepticism?
3) Is there a reason you are so thoroughly and passionately resistant to constructive criticism?
Ha, Ha! Many may have balked at Lord Monckton’s unapologetic use of “communist” for climate pushers over the years but the likes of Figueres and Ocasio-Cortez, unable to conceal their rampant opportunism have now really blown their cover.
takebackthegreen,
I can and do assure you that Viscount Monckton accepts all constructive criticism. He also gives appropriate consideration of anonymous bleating such as you provide (i.e. he ignores it).
I have no knowledge of Mr Monckton whomever he may be.
Richard
Here’s a radical idea: Look him up before you defend him.
takebackthegreen,
Here’s a radical idea for you. Know what you are talking about before spouting nonsense.
I can’t “look up” you because you post under a false name. But your posts clearly show you need squashing and not defending.
On the other hand, I don’t need to “look up’ Chris’ Monckton because I know him (e.g. see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938&linkbox=true&position=18 )
and you are deluded if you think he needs no defending from the likes of you.
Richard
IMLO, ….. the use of (quoted) “university” explicitly refers to an aforenoted university …. and not to any or all universities.
So, one first defines the subject university via its name of ….. University of California at Merced, … and subsequent references as simply …… “university”.
I certainly agree with the use, having spent several years amongst many colleagues whose titles seemed questionable, at best. Not everyone claiming to be a scientist is. Often they are merely “scientistic”, as a friend once observed.
The hubris of CliSci propaganda enablers (the Left always pushes too far) has led them to publicly libel individuals. They got away with generalized term “deniers,” so some of the foot solders assumed they could identify offending individuals in a “scholarly” manner (doxing). Why not? It works in left-wing media.
CliSci “scholarship” has degraded to the point that the editors of “scholarly” journals publish any arrant nonsensical CliSci pseudo-science until, now, they stupidly libel unbelievers. Speculative CliSci “studies” are rampant in “scholarly” journals.
Libel is a step too far. There are legal consequences to the foot solders that they did not contemplate when emulating (poorly) their masters. That ‘Nature Communications’ would knowingly libel individuals is beyond parody. Expect much backtracking and obfuscation by the “Team.” “Nothing to see here; move on, plebe.”
Being hauled up in court strips away the bafflegab and word salad (although confusing the jury sometimes works). Things are stripped to their essentials. I wonder if the various cities now regret hauling the oil companies into court. It exposed their BS for what it is.
Yeah, Nature has “jumped the shark” so to speak at a time when insanity abounds. The BS is easy to see.
It’s interesting that apparently in the UK the “police” are summoned for such matters. I hope that they never become arbiters of free speech here.
Clisci is just following the current trend that has been implemented by the whole of the leftosphere! Media types worldwide and Democrats in the States have gotten away from generalizing all “right of left wing ideology” as racist, sexist, bigot, and instead have began calling individuals the same labels.
It should come as no surprise that they have graduated from the general term climate deniers as representing the intellectual opposition to the IPCC driven pet theory on man-made global warming …. to [insert name] is a climate denier.
They are also becoming more bold about the true intent, socialistic global economic and energy policy.
Let’s not forget to mention that they are also calling for totalitarian control of speech, the press, and public discourse in general, and having their own unelected ilk as the self appointed deciders in all such matters.
When the British Bias Corp libelled us sceptic as denier and explained they literally meant like “holocaust deniers”, whilst it was obvious who they meant, if we had had the money to take action against them, all they would have said is “but we didn’t mean you”.
Interestingly, if Nature does stand behind this “research”, it now gives all those on the list a means to go back and sue the Biased Corp & a lot of others, because there will now be an “official” list of members of the “movement” who were being targeted by this libel.
If you count up the number of people libelled and the number of groups committing this libel the sums are eye-watering and any lawyer in that field would immediately see the possibilities of making themselves rich.
The list of characters in this charade is interesting: 1) The three hapless “researchers” (CliSci foot-solders) publishing a “scholarly” “study;” 2) UC Merced putting out press releases touting the “study” and further defaming individuals; 3) The Nature Communications (Propaganda) editors that approved publication of libel; and 4) The Nature publishers that encourage this sort of libel.
Buy popcorn; all four will see some impacts.
They stupidly libel believers too. Once the trough expansion stopped, backstabbing of “a little bit heretics” started.
“The hubris of CliSci propaganda enablers (the Left always pushes too far) has led them to publicly libel individuals.”
DeSmogBlog and/or SourceWatch has similarly libeled Anthony for being in Heartland’s payroll secretly, using the discredited Heartland “Strategy” documented as their basis, though citing the author of an article claiming that as their sole source, perhaps creating some wiggle room if they were sued for libel. Years ago, and more than once, I urged Anthony to sue them. It other remarks about him were half-truths or lies by omission, demonstrating malice. Maybe it would still be worth suing them. It wonderfully discredit sources that many propagandize dummies completely trust. They could no longer be cited as though they were reliable sources.
An equally good reason for a suit, as I mentioned in the past, is that it would drag Peter X. (forgot his last name) in as a witness, forced to explain the unexplainable details of how he received the Strategy document from a third party. (The dates in the metadata suggest that he “received” it after he’d published it.) This ought (hah!) to get the GPU to retract the award he was recently given.
Has crowd funding for legal fees been started? If so please list the site in which we can supply some help to the funding of the legal fees.
Many thanks to Jehill for his kind suggestion of funding. We are waiting until lawyers in the UK and the US have considered the matter and decided the best cause of action.
Monckton of Brenchley
Did you mean course of action ?
The legal counselors assessment of cause of action will inform as to the best course of action.
+1
At last…someone standing up to the thugs.
At the very least they will think twice before trying this nonsense again…other thugs will be watching and learning.
Well done and good luck!
This “nonsense” works, Alastair. They will continue unabated.
Misappropriation of public funds, malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty…these are crimes, in addition to fraud, libel, and the rest of the offenses, both civil and criminal, already mentioned.
At some point, people will be prosecuted and found guilty of these offenses, of that I am certain.
And it is going to start somewhere.
This seems to be as good a place as any.
When it starts, I am hoping for an avalanche, a veritable tidal wave, of such charges and prosecutions.
I am not a vindictive person, but they are, and they having been robbing the public coffers blind, and doing all sorts of other damage in the process.
Miseducation of entire generations of youth, God only knows how many suicides and overdoses among those who have been led to mental illness and despair, a large and widespread degradation of the process by which science is done.
Just to name a few.
Such people as are responsible, deserve whatever they have coming.
Get the GoFundMe page going. Might be the fastest to be funded ever!
+1
Popcorn futures hit new highs!
Go your Lordship go give them what they deserve for the corrupting of science and education (which is the thing that gets me most angry making children afraid of their own shadows and futures).
James Bull
Too much talking now, and too little firm action. Let’s make this clear:
The Nature Blacklist is comparable to the name lists circulated just some decades ago with “J” marks and the subsequent knocking on doors.
Consequently, I have just one message to the Nature management: Retract your disgusting paper ASAP, and then get down on your rotten knees and beg for mercy, and that the real scientific people will TRY to forget this in a few decades time from now.
Dear Nature management, I order you to listen to this song about knocking on doors:
Moral: Never pick a fight you can’t win with Jo Nova.
+1
Remember, the alarmist tactic as devised by Lewindowsky and outlined in detailed in one of his papers is to tell an enormous lie – which the press will then report widely – and even if they are forced to retract the lie, the press NEVER give any prominence to the retraction so that people only hear and remember the original lie.
It is Goebbels big lie mark II.
So, don’t be content with a retraction … they know the damage is done by the initial release of defamatory material dressed up as “research”, so don’t just accept a retraction but keep going and take them to the cleaners.
YES, YES, and YES
And even if court order were to force any media outlet carrying the original story to also report the retraction or corrections, they would still find a way to bury it from the eyes of the useful idiots.
+10
Indeed. The allegations and names are out there. It will continue to be used even if it disappears from open view. That was the intent – cause the harm; plead ignorance; smirk.
An old and forgotten adage – “If your goal is to silence dissenting points of view without proving them wrong, then what you’re doing is not science.”
That’s how you know they are not the ones who are “pro science” – THEY are the “anti science” types they keep accusing OTHERS of being. Classic projection!
Great show, Christopher!
The motto of the University in question is: “Let there be light”. I hope they now see the light shining on their egg-stained faces…
Tomorrow’s headline: “Extremist deniers pounce”.
BB…Tomorrow’s headline: “Extremist deniers pounce”
If the publication is of American origin I think it would also include The Latest catch cry of the pathetic USA Left…White Supremacy..
The USA Liberals invested all their Invective Eggs in The Mueller/ Russia Interference probe and it went down like a Lead Balloon…
So it is on to the next stage of insult and invective and that seems to be that The USA is White Supremacy …has always been this way and shall remain so unless they form government and perform some miracle…and they will repair The Weather and Climate too….and everything will provided…everything will be ‘free’.
The UK and international Guardian runs with these at every opportunity but it is published by the lunatic and ludicrous…of the lunatic and ludicrous…and for the lunatic and ludicrous.
Climate alarmists should realise that when it come to court proceedings that your model just won’t stand up to scrutiny, you need hard evidence.
Some motorcycle clubs wear a “1%” patch, meaning they are the “one percenters” of the motorcycle world.
Similarly we can adopt a “3%” insignia to signify that we are the “three percenters”, those outside of the 97% politically correct climatic consensus.
My guess is that Josh could come with a nice self explanatory design to stamp on shirts or other objects.
This whole situation is getting ridiculous. Time to step-up the game.
I would proudly wear a tee shirt with a tactful 3% insignia on it. Ohh …. what a way to lead someone into starting a conversation they wish they never had initiated. Please make it a good quality shirt with a pocket!
I have never considered a tattoo, but if I were to consider one, 3% seems like it might be a good candidate.
And let them put “Proud Member of the Deplorable 3%” on my tombstone.
Flight Level,
The “97%” is a lie.
Your suggestion advertises the lie as being truth and, therefore, would be self-defeating.
Richard
More like
(97%)0.3%Wait, don’t they get to count all their “back radiation” images from mirrors to boost that percentage?
Well, right. that 97% is a lie. However the sign that I suggest also implies that times are changing.
German syndicates warn that workers demonstrations will be of a “different nature” if the government keeps on destroying the industry.
We might be ahead of a shortage of ball peen hammers.
R.S. Courtney,
Here in the US we have a rather proud tradition of wearing the falsely applied monikers given by those who have tried to (choose your verb) all over us.
It may be a recent one, I am not sure about that, but I can say what the reasoning is, at least for some of us: Long after everyone is made aware of the truth, we want to remind ourselves and everyone else of what was said, knowing that it will also be recalled who said it, who repeated, and the whens and whys as well.
IOW…we want it to stick to the people who dished it out for a long time.
Some lies are simply too big to let fall by the wayside once everyone knows full well that it was a lie.
Deplorables, Deniers, Baby Killers and now Racists. I wear them all proudly. #TakeIt.
Baby Killer, oh yeah, I had almost forgotten being called that by the thugs screaming at me and a couple of other guys who had just returned from Vietnam and were running to catch our final flight home through the airport in San Francisco with our duffel bags on our shoulders trying to avoid being hit by the “stuff” they were throwing at us. Funny, many of us spent our off time accompanying the base Chaplains visiting missionaries in the area.
Here is a photo of “Baby Killers” in action that was uploaded to a website maintained by Vietnamese survivors of the purge who to this day remain thankful for our sacrifice on their behalf.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YyGSzLrYyVE/UDHYI3-512I/AAAAAAAAAtw/hu4IlFF2miI/s640/412-FS1.jpg
Apologies for this off-topic comment, but it does show that the tactics used today against “contrarians” and “deniers” are not new.
I think it is unwise to concede that there is a 97% consensus. It is nonsense. The best way to deal with these alarmist frauds is to refer to their predictions and demonstrate that they have been consistently wrong. Tony Heller is doing a marvellous job of debunking their alarmist claims.
Lie or no the “97%” is a widely recognised icon of the climate movement, regardless of what it actually means. Recognised Skeptics claiming:- ‘We are all of the “97%”‘, would make the nonsense of it which it is.
Could any person with real knowledge and wisdom want to be on the same list where Michael Mann holds the #1 position and Kevin Trenberth the #2 position!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4/figures/2
These two are no doubt dingbats of the highest order; “Hockey Trick” Mann and “Missing Heat” Trenberth. Giving either of them the title of scientists degrades the meaning of the word and any standing the word conveys as knowledgable adult professionals.
Anyone, including Lord Monckton, should be very pleased to be on a list of knowledgable people who oppose the view of dingbats. It is certainly not a cross to bear but a sign of due recognition for efforts to offer facts in the face of the religious zeal of Climate dingbats.
Compare the real world achievements of the people on the two lists and I know which one I would prefer to be on.
Any knowledgable individual should be suing the journal and paper authors for placing their name on a list that has Michael Mann at the top.
Excellent!
Yeah, but let’s start with going after them for the hate list.
Sigh…
Once again, the noble cause of correcting climate-science misinformation (as wonderfully practiced by Joanne Nova and many others) is subverted by the overblown antics of Monckton “Look at ME! Please!” of Brenchley.
Why must the Viscount of Narcissism stomp all over the subtler, stronger and infinitely more persuasive work of other skeptics?
I know you can’t choose your allies, but you can at least pass on your grandmother’s wise advice: “SEE the show. Don’t BE the show.”
Exactly.
He brings the skeptic view into disrepute by cloaking his wacky theory with William Happer’s credibility at 45:00 into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg and Richard Lindzen’s at 8:00 into this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c.
The latter video recorded a recent Heartland conference address in which he seemed to invite critiques from the heavy hitters in attendance. To the extent that they actually paid him any attention, I’m sure they told him he’s all wet. It’s probably too much to hope for that he will take any such input to heart and stop giving alarmists support for their contention that skeptics are all kooks.
Joe
For you and your mates, is the fact that one or more climate skeptics are “kooks” sufficient proof that both humans and insects will be extinct within 100 years? All due to CO2 from industry and cars and the colour of Donald Trump’s hair? The BBC have said this so that must mean that must carry more scientific authority than anything ever written by the enemies of the people black-listed in Fuhrernatureinigungs. N’est pas? Sieg heil!
Bitter concern trolls such as the Born Liar, alarmed as the “science” in which they believe is shown to be nonsense, often play the game of citing other “scientists” as having condemned – or at least failed to endorse – those of us who have raised questions about the Party Line. Professor Happer indeed said he liked our paper showing that feedback has been incorrectly defined and that, therefore, the feedback response to emission temperature entails a corresponding diminution in the feedback response to greenhouse warming.
The Born Liar, as usual, lies by saying that I had “cloaked my wacky theory” with Professor Lindzen’s credibility. No: I said I had learned much from him, but that any errors in our conclusions were mine alone – a point that the Born Liar, in the characteristically and calculatedly mendacious fashion of climate Communists everywhere, had very carefully omitted to state.
The Born Liar then goes on to lie to the effect that the eminent climate scientists before whom I recently gave a talk at the Heartland Conference in Washington DC all told me that I was entirely wrong, or words to that effect. Well, they didn’t. All three are now studying the draft paper and will, in due course, be letting me know whether they think we are making a legitimate case.
One of them, who had publicly questioned our result, told me he now accepts that we have answered his query as to the potential non-invariance of feedback response with temperature.
Our researches, and our consultations with eminent climate scientists and control theorists, continue. I shall be travelling overseas this week to see two scientists with specialist knowledge both of climate sensitivity and of control theory. Both of these have indicated that, in outline at any rate, they concur with our approach.
The Born Liar is wasting his time lying here. He is incapable of addressing the issue dispassionately or politely, and his seething, pathetic hatred drips through in all that he writes. let him go away and do his own research, rather than pooping vainly and mendaciously upon ours.
Christopher Monckton was personally attacked (blacklisted) by a well-funded PR group hiding behind the name Desmog*, and these people decided it would be a good idea to make the blacklist a part of the scientific literature by sending it to Nature Communications. How this was accepted? There was a serious failure in editor’s work and/or any conducted peer review.
That this sting operation was completed made Monckton the show. Viscount Monckton of Brenchley will not take this hit without a fight. I’m thinking Nature Comm. might retract the paper before long.
Scientific authority of the climate scientists should have included some social scoring where extra points given for owning a cat, Prius, living with one’s mother, in parent’s basement, being a virgin at 40, registered left-wing party, etc.
Add points for joining anti-social organizations as well as displaying skill in playing video games…some even wear costumes or pretend “uniforms” and band together with hooligans and riot…for example…
takebackthegreen,
Sigh….
Once again, the noble cause of correcting climate-science misinformation is attacked by a cowardly concern troll hiding behind anonymity while throwing abuse at the person attempting the correction.
Your egregious behaviour was to be expected, but it is made all the more reprehensible in this case because you are attacking a person who is opposing attempted censorship of named people including himself.
You should feel ashamed of yourself, but I suspect you are not capable of such decency.
Richard
We are losing a public debate we should be winning.
If you think that Monckton is an effective representative for the cause of CAGW skepticism, I respect your right to hold that opinion.
Good Luck.
Also, what is a “cowardly concern troll?”
takebackthegreen,
You ask me, “what is a “cowardly concern troll?”
I am surprised you don’t know. Cowardliness is “hiding behind anonymity while throwing abuse”, and the Urban Dictionary provides this definition of ‘concern troll’
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll
Richard
“Concern troll” is what people who can’t do the math call those of us who can and therefore see how silly Lord Monckton’s theories make skeptics look. Unable to see through Lord Monckton, all they can imagine is that we’re only pretending to be skeptics.
You’d think it would tell them something that no heavy-hitter skeptic has embraced Lord Monckton’s theory. The heavy hitters certainly would embrace it if there were anything to it, because it would be a knock-out punch; as Lord Monckton says, a mathematical proof would compel erstwhile high-ECS partisan to accept that ECS must indeed be low.
But, of course, there’s nothing to it. Roy Spencer has said so publicly, and I’m sure other big names have told Lord Monckton that privately. But no matter. True Believers gotta truly believe. It’s the way of the world.
Thank you, Joe.
As a group, isn’t our goal to reverse the spread of CAGW alarmism? We have science and economics on our side. Ideally that would be enough. But bad actors on BOTH SIDES have irreversibly politicized what should be a purely scientific debate. And we are losing.
With that in mind, shouldn’t we be willing to assess which of our “tactics” are working and which aren’t? I propose that Monckton is a tactic that isn’t working. Take a cursory glance at the man’s biographical details. Like it or not, fair or not, his history makes him counterproductive to achieving our goal.
There are so many brilliant, well-spoken, intellectual skeptics who can persuasively engage and educate the public. Unfortunately, this situation put them between Monckton and a chance to be the center of attention.
The collective public attention span is finite. Can we afford to encourage a man intent on hogging as much as he possibly can?
Can someone nudge Mr. Courtney, so he can get back to shooting the messenger?
takebackthe green and Joe Born,
I am DEFENDING “the messenger” (viz. Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) against the untrue and unprovoked personal abuse from you pair of concern trolls.
And concern troll is what sensible people call concern trolls.
Clearly, clicking the link I provided to the definition (viz. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll )
was beyond the capabilities of you two concern trolls so I copy it to here,
“concern troll
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.
In the 2006 election, an aide to Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught concern trolling the opposition on local blogs. While pretending to support Bass’s opponent, Paul Hodes, the aide argued that Hodes couldn’t win because Bass was an unbeatable candidate. Hodes won the election.”
Additionally, Joe Born, Lord Monckton’s science is totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread whatever the merits of his science. But you know that, you naughty little concern troll, you.
Richard
@richard S Courtney
Here! Here! and Huzzah! I will extend this to Rune V. fellow as well.
Courtney: You’re just wrong. No matter how much my strange bedfellows make it embarrassing to be on the correct side of this issue, that’s where I am.
None of this should matter, but: I understand the scientific method. I understand that valid evidence and logical thought falsify the idea of CAGW, not politicization, juvenile name calling or “consensus.” I have a scientific education up to the graduate level.
What I will never understand is the knee-jerk, circular-firing-squad mentality and misplaced anger that sometimes is allowed to drown out scientific discussions on this VITALLY IMPORTANT website. But it ain’t my blog and I’m not King.
Again, Troll this: we are slowly losing the debate. Monckton is a distraction, an abrasive, ill-mannered figure with a problematic past who insists on starting a public slap fight because some of the other boys talked mean about him. It is inconceivable his antics will convince a single person to rethink CAGW. MEANWHILE, he has stolen the spotlight from actual scientists with consistent and persuasive personalities and the advantage of being correct.
If you think this is an effective tactic, Courtney, I’m waving the white flag. You win. Go get ’em cowboy! I put in five whole minutes of quixotic effort. I need a nap.
That musicologist in Graz was certainly impressed enough to back down with a grovelling apology which was much too graciously accepted in my view.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/
takebackthe green,
No, you don’t need “a nap”. You need the guts to post your smears using your own name.
Richard
Listen, Richard (BTW, I think of you as more of a “Dick,” but I respect your choice.):
I think your sense of humor could use a firmware update. Also, I don’t think you’ve thought about the issue of anonymity clearly.
1) People sometimes say unacceptable things because anonymity makes then unaccountable. When that happens, the easiest solution is to ignore them.
2) In this case, my comments contained IDEAS. Goals. Tactics. Effectiveness. You haven’t addressed any of these ideas.
3) Here’s a way to help you test whether you can perceive differences in rhetorical intent:
Example #1: “Monckton’s methods hurt the cause.”
Example #2: “Monckton is a narcissist with disturbing opinions about epidemiology.”
Example #3: “Monckton likes to dress in Spiderman underoos and sing “I’m A Little Teacup.”
Can you articulate the difference between the 3 examples? The first two are true. But the first one contains opinions that are relevant to the context. The second could possibly be considered insulting, but the characteristic that would make it inappropriate for this Blog is that it is OFF-TOPIC. It doesn’t directly pertain to Climate Science. But it also doesn’t need hiding behind anonymity. The third is clearly not acceptable anywhere. If someone needed to post such an obvious falsehood, I could see where anonymity would be enabling.
I believe all my comments until now have followed example #1. So, none of my comments would change if I used my “real” name.
4) Maybe you are confusing ideas and opinions you don’t like, with some other kind of comment that is so awful the author wouldn’t dare say it face to face?
5) I can’t believe i have to spell this out, but: How do I know your name is really Richard S Courtney? I don’t; it doesn’t matter; and I don’t care. If you ever said anything on-topic, we could discuss ideas. Until then, I have the option of ignoring you, and vice versa.
6) Listen, I’m flattered by all the attention, and by your obsession with finding out my name. But I should let you know that I’ve been happily partnered for 20+ years. So… Sorry, not available. Thanks, though. I’m sure you’ll find the right person real soon! Best of luck.
6) Can we be done with this now? (I know… I could just not respond. Willpower, self-control, etc.) Can I unsubscribe from this post?
That was a collection of ad hominem attacks, false equivalence, hubris, borderline harrassment and, disrespectful.
Those are you opinions. And you are missing the point. But then again you are not here to help.
I have no desire to know your name but still agree with Richard. Stand in the light bro.
JEHILL and Courtney:
Wait! Your last paragraph caused a lightbulb to go off.
Do you and Courtney think I’m someone famous (or infamous) who is hiding behind a screen name and trying to cause problems???? I vaguely remember a post here about something like that. Is THAT the cause of this meltdown?
I originally thought you were implying my comment was somehow so out of line that only an anonymous person would make it. That didn’t make sense to me, but I chalked it up to Monckton being your hero or something.
But I missed an important detail. You really DO think I’m one of those believers in CAGW who is PUBLICLY KNOWN to some extent, and who is masquerading here to cause a ruckus. Therefore, you ignore my critique and focus on “unmasking” me.
It’s a subtle difference, but it FINALLY makes your behavior make sense to me. Still sucks, but I understand your motivation. AND IT’S SO EASY TO FIX.
Just do a google search on my screen name here on this website! My historical comment count isn’t huge or anything. But there are MORE than enough historical examples to prove I’m not a secret alarmist or troll.
Problem solved. Your suspicions are easily disproved without me having to give up my private information on a public internet forum (which any sane person would agree is a terrible idea).
Everything else is beyond salvation, but this feels done now.
JEHILL,
Thank you for your rebuttal of the nonsense from ‘takebackthegreen”.
I point out that his behaviour is typical warmunist behaviour: he only provides personal abuse (initially against Monckton and now against me) and ignores any rebuttal.
‘takebackthegreen’ pretends he is attacking Monckton for lack of effectiveness but ignores that both Joe Veragio and I have refuted that in responses to him in this thread .
Joe wrote to tell him,
“That musicologist in Graz was certainly impressed enough to back down with a grovelling apology which was much too graciously accepted in my view.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/ ”
And in a post above I wrote saying to ‘takebackthegreen’,
“I can’t “look up” you because you post under a false name. But your posts clearly show you need squashing and not defending.
On the other hand, I don’t need to “look up’ Chris’ Monckton because I know him (e.g. see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938&linkbox=true&position=18 )”
The link Joe provided gives example of Monckton’s complete success in a case where he acted as his above article reports he is now acting; i.e. it demonstrates Monckton’s methods have worked when he acted alone.
The link I provided gives example of Monckton working with others (Morner and me) to win a debate; i.e. it demonstrates Monckton can act with others to obtain success. And that event also shows how warmunists have no arguments and – as ‘takebackthegreen’ has shown here – they think personal abuse is an effect alternative to valid arguments. (I think you may want to read the article of my link).
Additionally, ‘takebackthegreen’ suggests I may be using a false name, if so then
(a) St Andrews Uni. would not have been able to contact me to ask me to speak in the debate that my link reports
and
(b) my name would not be on the ‘Nature Blacklist’ (it is).
Richard
Heh, heh. They hate him. They wouldn’t waste such passion, smear and trolling on the ineffective.
The ‘warmunist’ trolls are easiest to spot from their reversion to type when losing.
Richard S Courtney had their number long ago but seeing him flush them out for the rest of us was a pleasure to behold.
The Born Liar lies when he says no heavy-hitter skeptic has supported our contention that official climatology has misdefined temperature feedback and has accordingly overestimated the feedback response to greenhouse-gas warming.
A team of scientists working in parallel with ours, and sharing a co-author with us, has in fact found empirical evidence powerfully confirming our theoretical result. I shall be having discussions with that group overseas this week.
The Born Liar cites Dr Spencer as having disagreed with us. But, as usual, he did so without taking the trouble to check his facts. Dr Spencer now accepts, subject to reading our latest draft, that his original argument to the effect that we had insufficiently dealt with the possibility that feedback response is not invariant with temperature has now been addressed. He still questions whether there can be a feedback response to emission temperature and, on this point, two of our control theorists have supplied material explaining why such a response is, after all, to be expected, and he is looking at that material as I write.
Besides, as the Born Liar would know if his training had been in science, about which he knows nothing, rather in in law, about which he knows little, he would know that it does not matter how many “heavy-hitters” say we are wrong, or fail to say we are right, if we are, objectively speaking, correct.
To rely – and inaccurately at that – upon the imagined (and imaginary) opinions of a “consensus”, whether of true-believers in the Party Line like Mr Born or of the “heavy-hitting” skeptics who, he hopes, disagree with our result is rely upon an infelicitous conflation of two shoddy, ancient logical fallacies – the argumentum ad populum and the argumentum ad verecundiam (respectively, the headcount and reputation fallacies).
More name-calling and half-truths from Lord Monckton.
I wasn’t at that conference, so I can’t be absolutely sure of what went on there. But the videos show it was attended by Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Nir Shaviv. And you can bet that if scientists such as those bothered to speak with Lord Monckton about his theory they tried to tell him what his problems are; among those who can do the math, I think it’s generally accepted that Lord Monckton is off the rails. Anything Lord Monckton says to imply otherwise is undoubtedly deceptive.
Did those guys perhaps say they’d look at his paper? Maybe they did in order to be polite; again, I wasn’t there. But that doesn’t mean they take his theory seriously.
And let’s remember what that theory is, since he now seems to be running away from it. Its main point is that “such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has , as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.”
His theory isn’t merely that ECS is low—a proposition I’ve never argued against—but rather that a low ECS value is mathematically implied by the proposition that “such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof.” And that’s wrong; low ECS isn’t thereby implied, as numerous commenters have tried patiently to explain to him for a couple of years now.
So now he’s hit upon that risible “X factor,” about which he says, “Dr Spencer now accepts, subject to reading our latest draft, that his original argument to the effect that we had insufficiently dealt with the possibility that feedback response is not invariant with temperature has now been addressed.” Is it possible that Dr. Spencer, not having yet done the math, did not immediately identify how egregious Lord Monckton’s X-factor math is? Sure. But, again, Lord Monckton is attempting to imply more big-name acceptance than he’s actually garnered.
Oh, and here’s a tip. If you’re going to go on about appeals to authority, first make sure you know what an appeal to authority is. If anyone is basing his belief on authority, it’s Lord Monckton’s fanboys, who seem easily impressed by Lord Monckton’s sophomoric sesquipedalianism and gratuitous Latin; they obviously can’t follow the math. My reference to the heavy hitters was to note how odd it was that such fanboys didn’t observe the heavy hitters’ failure to embrace Lord Monckton’s theory.
I, on the other hand, base my view on the math. So if, as I doubt, Dr. Spencer actually accepts that preposterous X-factor argument, I have no problem saying he’s wildly in error. I was discussing feedback issues with Bell Labs engineers while Dr. Spencer was still a schoolboy; I don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.
Look, there are many good reasons to believe that ECS is low. Let’s not hamper scientists who espouse them by associating those serious voices with someone who’s notorious for bad math and juvenile name-calling.
Imagine someone not realizing how patronizing and obnoxious it is to start a comment with the word “Sigh”. May I never be so obtuse!
Matthew Schilling ,
You are right. Also, imagine how unfortunate it is that some people lack the wit to recognise the parody of using of somebody’s own words against them.
Richard
I did not intend to reply to your reply, but to takebackthegreen’s patronizing comment. In fact, I’m quite certain I clicked the Reply button directly under his comment, so I’m not sure how/why my reply ended up under yours.
Matthew Schilling ,
That’s fine. Thank you for the explanation.
Anyway, it has resulted in my explaining what I did and why I did it to the benefit of any who did not understand. So, the matter has turned out to be a win for you, for me, and even for the loser whom we have each told that stupid comments get rebuffed.
Richard
Moderators, please remove the comment from the anonymous “Takebackthegreen”, which consists of insults delivered from behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity and is, therefore, contrary to site policy.
After I had the policy changed, it was at first rigorously enforced against anonymous contributors taking advantage of their anonymity to make cowardly personal attacks. Now these personal attacks from anonymous contributors are becoming more frequent again. Please do your best to enforce the site policy on such attacks.
“Takebackthegreen” certainly has form yet doesn’t seem to have learned anything from he/she/its years of being tolerated. Constant vigilance may be tiring but is necessary to maintain the standards this site has become known and trusted for.
I should also like to thank Joe Veragio, Jehill and, above all, Richard Courtney for their spirited and well-reasoned defenses against the lies and hatred peddled by the furtively anonymous “takebackthegreen”.
A year ago, i would have said this would do no good, except perhaps discouraging the use of the subject’s names in research publications (a clear violation). Slowly, things are turning a bit toward shutting this down. Remember, however, that these people are basically emotional children who may go silent for a bit, but will return to test how far they can get repeatedly. Eventually they will find a new tactic and the rational adults will adapt and deal. When society celebrates eternal infancy and adolescents, times get very ugly and we are in one now. One victory is just that, one. The fight is forever.
I agree that proof-reading (my own included) is a dying art as we allow computers to think for us. It seems Monckton has the same problem. As for his language, he’s dealing with politicians, not scientists, irrespective of what their title may infer. The language seems appropriate for that situation. I note, too, that anything less than the flamboyant way Monckton speaks would seem disingenuous to most who have read his writings. He is who he is and he seem unlikely to tone things down, nor do I think he should. People should not be sheep. He’s known, heard and apparently disliked by the AGW crowd as he is, so he is effective in that sense. Face it, no matter what tone is taken, skeptics are hated. No amount of making nice does a bit of good. It’s like dealing with pit bulls. You never blink, you never back down, you never give an inch or you get shredded.
I totally agree Sheri. This is WAR, and our side is simply sitting in a corner, with one thumb in its mouth, and the other thumb inserted “down under”(No offense intended toward the Aussies or New Zealanders). When are we finally going to officially declare war with these charlatans? And isn’t it time to finally declare that Nixon made a horrible mistake by creating such a huge bureaucracy? Whatever was he thinking?
Sooner or later, we are going to have to become fiscally responsible, and get rid of all the waste if we are ever going to regain solvency. And NOAA is a great First Step in that direction.
NOAA has 12,000 personnel.
Their web page features the hottest July lie.
“Remember, however, that these people are basically emotional children …” Yes, it is juvenile. When the Anderegg, et al., (Expert credibility in climate change) paper came I did wonder about the credibility of statistical training, somewhat verified by my checking. This paper did not indicate much improvement as they did cite it thusly–“One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature.” This is a modern version of “My daddy can beat up your daddy!”
I totally agree Sheri. This is WAR, and our side is simply sitting in a corner, with one thumb in its mouth, and the other thumb inserted “down under”(No offense intended toward the Aussies or New Zealanders). When are we finally going to officially declare war with these charlatans? And isn’t it time to finally declare that Nixon made a horrible mistake by creating such a huge bureaucracy? Whatever was he thinking?
Sooner or later, we are going to have to become fiscally responsible, and get rid of all the waste if we are ever going to regain solvency. And NOAA is a great First Step in that direction.
Glad to see you threatening legal action in the US as well as the UK.
The prospect of defending themselves on two continents should get their attention!
Lord Monckton, thank you standing up to the enviro-nazis. If they get their way, the cost of electricity will skyrocket and the mass of people on society’s fringe will suffer needlessly. Many will die. Needlessly.
This is always the end result of unbridled leftism – mass misery and mass death. The injection of leftist ideology into science will ultimately result in the wholesale slaughter of millions, perhaps billions, unless said ideology is not exposed and vociferously opposed. I firmly believe this is the whole point of climate change alarmism – to reduce the human population to “sustainable” levels and rid the earth of “deplorables” – like me.
Um…the cost of electricity in many places has long since skyrocketed.
The fact that in many places it has gone down is proof that the increase is 100% attributable to climate alarmist and the attendant taxation, fraud, and insanity, which has accompanied it.
I think it is about time that this scam of AGW (which it undoubtedly is) is political not scientific. If it was scientific then logical argument, not name-calling, would be the way to settle the issue. I think the way forward to put AGW in the same bed as global cooling in the 1970’s and vaccination causing brain damage to children is to crowd-fund a full and independent investigation. I don’t know how or if it could be done but what is factual is that the means of combating ‘climate change’ using archaic, unpredictable and unreliable methods of energy production to my mind is the evidence that it is political. If it is not what is the matter with nuclear power from thorium? The technology has existed since he 1940’s it is clean, safe (a thorium reactor cannot go critical) and will produce cheap and reliable energy. Relying on power from the wind blowing from the right direction at the right speed and/or the sun shining and the ‘right’ phase of the moon appears to me to place the western powers in the same situation as the third-world; poor, hungry and miserable.
The alarmist zealots are fearful even of scientists who are dead for the “skeptics” hate list contains several names of people who are no longer with us. Sue them if you possibly can Lord Monckton in a court of law since a “court of science” does not exist. I am from the business world and if public company officials and employees behaved like these guys they would end up in jail.
To be succinct:
Lawsuit. Discovery. All emails between all parties involved in this publication.
The results might be most interesting.
“I was one of the first to show that climate change is real and human-made. I have contributed to several reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and I have advised climate policy formation and design in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States of America.”
So, the “scientist” complaining about being labeled a contrarian is actually a Warmunist!
That quote surprised me. Other than Urban Heat what contribution has mankind made to Climate Change?
…three UC Merced faculty, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, aka the “Larry, Curly, and Moe” faculty members…paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard….or maybe the three Monkeys…is turn about fair play?
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/380639813998-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
True comedic artists.
The Three Stooges are too. 🙂
“I was one of the first to show that climate change is real and human-made….”
Climate change occurs always, and the claim it is human made is too vague. Is it 100% human caused, or only 1%? No proof of either claim is demonstrated.
Run-a-way climate science ego…
I don’t know who it was quoted from in the main post, but in what way did they show it?
To be among the first to show that climate change is real, then one would have to be a contemporary of Louis Agassiz wouldn’t he or she? To claim otherwise is to ignore that original work and that of who knows how many geologists between then and now. And no one has produced any demonstration of how large the current changing climate is and what fraction is due to human influences. Most of us are convinced there is some, but could not cite a fraction or plus/minus value.
At breakfast I was speaking with my wife, who had not yet heard of Ms. Thunberg, and the first thing she said in response was, “What terrible exploitation.” She was even more appalled to learn about the Nature article. Many intelligent adults are not tuned into this news, and that probably makes the job of activists easier.
Modern media exploitation of children–a children’s crusade. Carbon offsets–indulgences. Nature’s list of deniers to ignore–lists of banned books. Child climate prophets–Joan of Arc. A week’s worth of climate hysteria news and it becomes indistinguishable from medieval religion. And moreover, if one listens to what issues from the mouths of the adolescent climate activists, it sounds exactly like what comes from the adults.
A full airing of what goes on in climate world each week ought to open people’s eyes.
Wrong thread, dude.
Reading comprehension Dude.
Don’t waste your time and money on a petty defamation lawsuit.
Let’s sue the climate alarmist institutions, the ones who have money and their financial sponsors, under USA Civil RICO. If we win, we get TRIPLE DAMAGES for the billions or trillions of dollars wasted by the US government due to false claims of global warming, wilder weather, etc.
Contact me through my website. We raise the funds by crowd funding, and hire a competent law firm.
This should have been done when I first proposed it – in 2013 or earlier.
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/21/salmon-climate-and-accountability/#comment-1349527
[excerpt]
On Accountability:
I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago:
I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.
I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.
There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering
This sounds good to me! Please see my comment currently 7th above yours.
Allan, you could add the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars given to so-called “green” corporations, who not long after went bust (e.g. Solyndra, et al).
(Snipped) +10
The object should rightfully be to prove that there is financial fraud going on with the alarmist claims, and the threats and blacklisting that accompany these claims plays into protecting financial resources.
I’ve seen enough of what amounts to nothing but fraud by people whose sole purpose is financial gain, no matter that it costs other people extensively. With this climate scam that has gone on for so long, the blacklisting of people with opposing views, and denial of their right to publish those opposing views, smacks loudly of financial fraud. Look at how much the various “top” organizations take in, especially the UN’s climate panel.
Always follow the money. ALWAYS. And when money is involved people who want it/get it will do anything, including trying to ruin those with opposing views, period.
ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Mr Macrae raises a most interesting possibility: that of using the RICO statute. Before we go there, I want to do one final piece of scientific research. A team working in parallel with ours has discovered that there is no radiative imbalance in the climate at present, which, given current estimates of net anthropogenic radiative forcing and of observed warming, implies that feedback response is zero or very close thereto.
If, therefore, there proves to be sound empirical confirmation of our theoretical conclusion that feedback response to greenhouse gases must be small, then the extremist predictions of future warming are indeed proven wrong, and we can push back quite vigorously via the criminal system against those entities that have fraudulently profiteered from their pretence that “the science is settled” when they have simply been wrong from the outset.
If the paper is inaccurate, why not write to the Editor of the journal and suggest that it be withdrawn immediately?
Because that has worked SO well in the past with alarmist papers.
P. Dean, it is not just inaccurate. It is malicious libel. It is a political screed doxing individuals. It is a violation of privacy laws. Being nice is not an option.
FYI. As a somewhat OC proofreader, here is a minor typo that struck my eye that detracted from the otherwise flawlessly written letter and characteristic prose style:
take not —> take note
“I should be grateful if you would forthwith arrange for the prominent link from the “university’s” homepage to the offending press release to be removed, and for the press release either to be removed or amended to take not of the fact that the editors of the journal in which the offending purported “study” was published are investigating our criticisms of it.”
Oops. I see this was already noted above (M. Broderick Aug, 17, 10:32).
You missed one:
Mark Broderick August 17, 2019 at 10:24 pm
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“The complainant explains that the 2018 Act implements the Directive of our unelected SU masters on General Data Protection and that, therefore,
German(GermanY) ? has an Act similar to the British legislation.”🙂 Thanks.
Stretching . . .would SU be EU? I’m not familiar with the first abbreviation aside from what I just found on google.
My mistake: it should have read “EU”, not “SU”, though it is a Socialist Union and not a European one.
I am proud to be a contrarian and a denier.
Being a contrarian and not balling in step with the crowd has served me well throughout my life. It gives me time to look at the issues and come to a rational decision. Rarely the crowd turns out to be right but I know what the issues are.
And I deny a lot of things. I deny that the Earth is flat. I deny that the Earth was created only a few thousand years ago. And I deny CAGW (you need all four of exactly those letters, not some watered down version). And I deny them all for the same reason: I know science and none of them are scientific.
“Being a contrarian and not balling in step with the crowd”
You baller you!
I am pissed that I didn’t make the list. Haven’t they read my working paper on the greenhouse gas concentrations derived from ice cores?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3304901
James McCown,
Thank you for posting the link to your paper that assesses ice core data. I strongly concur with the statement in its Conclusions that says,
“Moreover, the issues of gradual bubble closure and gas diffusion through the ice ensures that the data are at best a weighted average of several years’ concentrations. Conducting unit root and cointegration tests with such data almost guarantees spurious results, as we have shown with our Monte Carlo simulations.”
I think your paper merits wider acknowledgement, and I hope my writing this will encourage people to use your link and to assess it for themselves.
Richard
I’ve just looked at the UC Merced website.
It certainly is “woke”.
https://es.ucmerced.edu/news/2019/media-creates-false-balance-climate-science-study-shows
The article in question is a massive appeal to authority. Seeing one of the authors (an assistant Professor, Petersen) specialises in “complexity and models of science”, the whole article might have more credibility if he were to address the variability between climate models and why they appear to universally run too hot.
Scientists who refer to this “inconvenient truth” are obviously contrarians and simply intellectually incapable of appreciating the academic pinnacle of climate science.
I am willing to entertain the possibility that the three authors are in fact true believers, and have no idea of that which they speak, and that which they have written about.
In other words, they have swallowed the entire steaming pile of malarkey, hook, line, and sinker.
I am all in favor of them getting a very sudden, complete, and rude education in the actual facts.
They still performed these actions and contrary to the leftist narrative they are responsible for those actions. What they knew or believed is immaterial. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Yes, I agree that there is no excuse.
The question I was pondering comes down to more one of, is it possible the authors are malicious by dint of being incredibly gullible, ignorant, and lazy, rather than by dint of being outright liars and/or charlatans?
Also, some of each is a distinct possibility.
Neither excuses any of the offense they have given.
And as well, which is worse, the former or the latter, seems debatable.
Ignorance is no defense, although when it comes to the sentencing phase, disposition often is considered, and sometimes given considerable weight.
And besides for all of that, the underlying scientific and epistemological issues have no bearing on how or why they came to disregard privacy laws, or felt it was their right to commit libel against those with whom they disagree on such issues.
All I was getting at is that their own personal ignorance of the actual scientific questions and uncertainties, may have never even crossed their minds, such is the extent of the mass hysteria that has arisen within a wide academic and social echo chamber-like bubble.
There is a growing certainty that an awful lot of otherwise able minded people have, in the year 2019, lost a conservable portion of their wits.
To say it more plainly and using a popular vernacular: These folks done gone plumb loco.
Climate science has deteriorated to competing soap box corners in Hyde Park. Facts are no longer relevant, just clickbait accusations. Meanwhile the elite take money from the non-elite after convincing them it’s for their own good.
Lawsuits like this are like throwing sand into the gears of a machine. Slows ’em down, mostly. I think only three things can stop the madness: 1) a wintertime, major power outage that kills a lot of people or 2) a major war or recession that makes energy security or economic realism imperative, or 3) at least 10 years of falling global temperatures and Arctic/glacial ice growth.
The alarmists have to move out of positions of influence before the narratives can be reversed. Gore retire. Politicians retire. CEOs get replaced. Celebrities lose their fans. There are too many egos identified with their activism to have enough Road to Damascus moments to make a difference.
CO2 rising is a given. There should be some serious cognitive dissonance when it becomes clear the “victim” group of non-European cultural are determined to raise their emissions if life qualities need it. But the smart sensitive have an amazing ability to turn their eyes elsewhere (women’s rights, slavery, religious genocide, oceanic plastic pollution). Facts won’t be enough. There will have to be serious pain …. or serious falling temperatures (and the pain that comes with).
Contents of my email from several days ago:
Ms Anderson,
By now your communications are undoubtably clogged with this controversy. Briefly, as a CA taxpayer, why is this study still up? Retraction as prelude to apology is an obvious act to protect my interests. Having some familiarity with the topic and victims let me add a voice to the chorus of those urging to back off. As a taxpayer I would take a very dim view of UCM circling the wagons.
Regards,
[Rob_Dawg]
Xxx, CA
Parody:
UC Merdec Numpty: Hey, Generous Soul!
Generous Soul: What do you want, Mr. Numpty?
UCMN: We’re about to get sued. I figure we can do that thing
again where we stonewall and let it wither and die in the courts.
We need a little contingency set-aside, just in case we lose.
GS: No problem. What’s your exposure?
UCMN: About a million per plaintiff, if we lose.
GS: Got you covered. How many plaintiffs did you say?
UCMN: Three hundred and eighty six.
GS: Three hundred and eighty six? Wait a minute!
What did you do?
UCMN: We published a hit-piece naming 386 deniers–
GS: {dial tone}
There is something here that I think most of us are missing. They included people from their own side in the “Blacklist” and the error got through pal review.
If they can’t ever distinguish their own side from ours why should the public believe their climate data etc.
This may be a way to discredit their credibility. It should be thrown in their face on every occasion, in every forum.
michael
The simple fix to distinguish THEIR side from OUR side would be to require that ALL Climate Alarmists MUST wear a clown costume and wear a Tin Foil Hat while our side dress as we normally do. That way, their ACTUAL appearance would match their VIRTUAL appearance, and everyone would easily be able to distinguish between the two camps…the military created the precedent of uniforms a long time ago.
Einstein fled during the “only German science allowed” era of the brown shirts.
Einstein has a jewish background his fleeing had nothing to do with science, trying to misrepresent facts is bad no matter why it is done.
“We are moving into a new, controlled society worse than old totalitarianism”
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek
https://www.rt.com/news/466738-zizek-google-internet-censorship/
I’m so far down the list it’s embarrassing.
I need to up my game
The paper refers to ‘climate contrarians’, a pejorative term.
I can’t think of a more neutral one that the media can find acceptable. There’s the consensus, and there are the contrarians opposed to the consensus. Calling our side “skeptics” raises fury among warmists and journalists have been persuaded not to use it. This is a battle we can’t win. “Contrarians” is almost as good, and CAN displace “deniers<" so let's settle for three-quarters of a loaf.
‘Contrarian’ suggests disagreeing primarily, if not entirely, for the sake of disagreeing. It is wholly wrong and misrepresents the nature, purpose and substance of the dissent.
How about we learn from a person who suffered from an Authoritarian view of science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
GALILEO GALILEI
Very effective. Respect.
Love it. I’ve been blacklisting Nature since the early 90s when I cancelled my subscription.