You might think that someone who has had a single ‘scientific’ article exposed as having no less than 125 errors in it might spend some time licking his wounds and seeing where he went wrong, wouldn’t you?
Not if it’s Christopher Monckton, not if he’s one of the Climate Change Denier[1] Undead[2] he won’t.
Now this could easily just be about a man who is so hopelessly full of himself and clueless that it staggers the imagination, but that’s not very interesting. Funny and sad perhaps, but not interesting.
What makes it interesting is the response of some of the media and the Denier mob, and what we can learn about educating the public about climate change. There are several important lessons to be learned here and I would like to run through them quickly.
For those who don’t know it the Monckton/APS story is summarized here, with a fuller version here. For our purposes it is enough to say that Monckton published a piece of Climate Change Denierism that was shown to be riddled with errors, just like all of his earlier work (here and here as well) actually. Not said to be, shown to be. Arthur Smith patiently guides one through the whole abomination in excruciating detail, fully explained and properly referenced. Case closed.
Not quite. Monckton goulishly rises from his metaphorical coffin to err again. Why would anyone care? Because keeping Monckton shambling about also keeps the corpse of Denierism going (it feeds on confusion and fear), so more than a few people are very keen that he be revived.
So today we get this “BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased ‘one-sided polemic’” in the Mail Online (Daily Mail) and “BBC investigated over climate change documentary” at the Telegraph. Quite the headlines, aren’t they? Sure sounds serious, except:
– there is no investigation in any official sense other than Ofcom looking into the complaint as it is required to do for every complaint, no matter how absurd or irrational;
– the fair and balanced media doing a story on lack of balance did not contact anyone to give a balanced story.
So we get an unbalanced non-story presented in a way that gives the appearance that Monckton has some shred of credibility which he most certainly does not. Pure sensationalism perhaps? or more “Media as Climate Change Deniers?” (Hint, The Telegraph again)
Needless to say the pestilence is spreading through the Denialosphere eg here, here, and here. Note that
in no case are they interested in the fact that Monckton is hopelessly wrong. He is the martyr crucified on the cross of Climate Dogma, a fearless truth seeker being crushed beneath the iron heel of the communist controled BBC.
Think I’m kidding? Go read the comments on the news stories, the Denier sites, and whatever you find searching ‘Monckton potty peer’ As Poe’s Law implies. you can’t create a parody of the radical right that is more ridiculous than the reality.
At the news sharing site Digg.com you can see that I posted the stories problems shortly after it appeared, yet the Deniers simply ignore that and approve the story. The Deniers are simple not interested; facts and evidence won’t stop them.
So why bother arguing with them?
My comments are not for the Deniers. I am well aware that a percentage of the population will always remain willfully ignorant (and here). Even so it is critically important to challange and refute them at every opportunity – it is a critical aspect of educating the broader public and the topic of my next blog.
UPDATE: Tim Lambert at Deltoid has some new comments on Lord Voldemonckton as well Monckton: “as if I was some potty peer”
—-
[1] As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed here and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
[2] Lest any find the ‘Undead’ comparison cheap and distasteful, all I can claim in my defence is bad influences
Greenfyre's 
I read your blog for quite a long time and must tell that your posts always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
Of all of the affects of climate change, perhaps this change to undead is the worst!
You truly are a brain dead, useful idiot. Climate-gate proves what Monckton has been saying all along – the economy-destroying, communist left-wing liberals such as yourself – just make up fraudulent stories out of thin air to implement a global fascist-communist government.
Enjoy the camp. Useful idiots like you always are the first to be betrayed by the “revolution”.
Don’t let the fact that it’s actually gotten cooler over the last 10 years even though we’ve poured more (evil life-giving) CO2 into the atmosphere than ever in this industrial era.
Shouldn’t it actually be getting warmer Eugene? Hmmm.
Oh yeah. Don’t let the fact that it was warmer in 1934 than today deter your delusional fascist-communist rants. This would be a rather inconvenient truth for your high-priest Al Gore to deal with.
—-
Bob, I think you’re comment is a satire. But I’m not completely certain…
—-
Yup. Reads like some of us at Denial Depot.
Thank you for this engaging piece. I am non believer of climate warming/change but I am glad to see your time is spent researching the information properly and informing your readers with evidence.
It’s easy to get emotional with such topics but we must all go out and research this stuff ourselves. Without it, we all end up ‘towing the line’ of our favoured view and we can miss the bigger picture.
One question – The CO2 widget increases on your site – I take it these are ppmv? If so, have you seen the YouTube video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI ?? It makes an interesting argument. As the ‘parts’ are depicted as grains of rice (and not a trending graph that can make trends look far scarier to fit the authors agenda 😉 ) it highlights the visible and by no means insignificant increase human activities cause with CO2 emissions. But it was surprisingly small against the natural occuring CO2 and it makes me question what impact will humans reducing their output really do? Are the gains worth the step back in progression of our societies?Heating our homes, freedom to use transportation, surfing the ‘net on our laptops or iPhones? These items all increase the demand for fuel.
Not until Al Gore et al lead by example – ceasing air travel, selling their cars, rejecting powered household appliances, growing their own food, making their own clothing and living in a pre-industrialised way (rather than driving a Prius and thinking that cleanses the soul) will I consider this issue serious enough to act.
I do my best for the enviroment. I compost, I recycle and try to use the minimum of fuel for my home and 1 vehicle. But I won’t go without my comforts until I see President Obama or Gordon Brown digging up potatoes and carrots in their gardens or rowing to the next global conference.
—-
sorry for my language (self learning)
).
I agree with Bob in every word. I’m from Czech rep. We had communist gov. and they did some kind of screening of people, in Czech lang. Kádrování. That’s what You did. In article You have not a single point of Moncktons stands about GW (now it’s Climate Change.. because lack of warming
Just for example…
You are victim of religion, religion’s have same basis with nacism, communism etc.
Every word?
Either your English is worse than you think or you are a Poe too.
Well, please correct my English. Or we can communicate in Czech, Slovak, Russian and on very basic level Greek language.
Think about the following two points:
1. the IPCC was called IPCC from its inception. What does CC in IPCC stand for? Climate change, NOT global warming.
2. It was a spindoctor for the Bush government that suggested the US government no longer use global warming, but rather should use climate change, because it sounded less dangerous and problematic.
Monckton is your new redeemer, because he says what you like to hear. He appeals to your fear. He appeals to your beliefs. He is the high-priest of the deniosphere, having loads of followers. Like you, aniryba. And like so many believers, you don’t see you are a believer.
1. Maybe at the begining of this office was real interest to find reasons of climatic changes (in history, present and future)
If we have problem with CC, why we fighting (on political level) with GW, and at the end globaly only with CO2?
Is there anything incorrect:
a)Ocean water helds dissolved gases.
b) If rise temp. decreases ability to hold gases and so they are released
c) Is it true, that level of CO2 follows temp.?
2. says nothing
Personally I know Monckton about 3 weeks just from internet. I don’t need him to understood.
I am afraid you are now in the wrong thread with your questions, but if Greenfyre allows, I’ll answer here:
a) Yes, ocean water holds dissolved gases
b) That depends on the partial pressure of gases in the atmosphere. That is, it is an equilibrium. We know, from CO2 isotope analysis, that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is NOT from ocean outgassing. In fact, the oceans are a sink for CO2 this century.
c) Yes and no. In the past, a small temperature increase caused CO2 outgassing from the ocean, resulting in more warming. It’s called a positive feedback. The last century, however, CO2 is the direct driver of temperature increases.
It thus is clear why we focus mainly on CO2: it is the main driver of temperature increases.